/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 240 Headlines AETNA INC: Out-of-Network Benefit Claims Still Pending ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Class Action ALPINE ELECTRONICS: Recalls Audio Amplifiers Due to Fire Risk AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plumbers and Steamfitters Filed Class Action AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Houssain" Class Action Filed in New York AMERICAN HONDA: "Oakes" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL AMERICAN HONDA: "Cushing" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL ASHLEY MADISON: "Deloach" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach AUTONATION INC: Defending Wage and Hour Suits in California AVID LIFE: "Doe" Suit Removed to Eastern District of Arkansas BACK 2: Recalls Organic Chia Seed Powder Due to Salmonella BARCLAYS BANK: Removes "Gallaway" Suit to Nevada District Court BAYLIS MEDICAL: Recalls Protrack Injectable Catheters BLUE BIRD: Recalls 31 Units of All American Non-School Bus BLUE BIRD: Recalls 47 Units of All American School Bus BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Afzal" Sues for Vehicle Engine Defects BMW: Recalls 5 Series 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk BOFI HOLDING: "Golden" Class Action Filed in S.D. California BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Smoke Alarm Product Due to Fire Hazard BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Risk CAMPBELL COMPANY: Recalls Ready to Serve Soup Products CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in NY Action Entered Into MOU CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Not Yet Responded to Delaware Action CLECO CORPORATION: 2nd Amended Class Action Petition Filed CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Remanded COCA-COLA: 3 Merger Class Actions Filed in Del. Chancery COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending CVR PARTNERS: Faces Mustard Class Suit Related to Rentech Merger CVR PARTNERS: Faces Sloan Class Action Related to Rentech Merger DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Additional Ignition Switch Class Action Filed DIONO: Recalls Multiple Booster Seat Models Due to Injury Risk DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Facing "Hansen" Class Action in N.D. Ill. DISTRIBUTION EPICERIE: Recalls Pesto Products Due to Milk EMCOR GROUP: Remainder of Funds to be Paid Before Yearend FAIRWAY GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Judge Tossed Securities Class Action FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Reaches Settlement in Daisy Case FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Model Due to Noncompliance FORD: Recalls E450 Cutaway Chassis 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Roberts" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL GNC HOLDINGS: Faces 33 Lawsuits Related to DMAA/Aegeline Claims GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Brewer Case Postponed to February 2016 GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Naranjo" Class Action GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Cranberry Ginger Dressing GREAT DANE: Recalls 2016 Heavy Trailer Model Due to Crash Risk HONDA: Recalls 2016 CR-V Models Due to Injury Risk HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata 2015, 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in N.D. Ill. Action INTEL CORPORATION: Class Certification Hearing in December 2015 INTEL CORPORATION: Paid Settlement Amount in HTEAL Case INTEL CORPORATION: Appeal in McAfee Shareholder Suit Pending INVENSENSE INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit KM IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Milk LAOS: Faces California Class Action Over Government Atrocities LARIVIERE PARKING: "Cappelli" Suit Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages LIVE NATION: Briefing Next Year on Appeals in Ticketing Fees Case MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Class Action Pending MASTERCARD INCORPORATED: District Court Order Reversed MCNEILUS TRUCK: Recalls 41 Vehicles Due to Injury Risk MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Actions Consolidated in N.D. Ill. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: TalentBin Faces Consumer Class Action NEUSTAR INC: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for December 3 NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome 2016 Models NXSTAGE MEDICAL: Recalls Portable Hemodialysis Systems ORMCO CORPORATION: Recalls Orthodontic Archwires OTTO BOCK: Recalls Triton Prosthetic Foot Products OUTDOOR GEAR: Recalls Bicycle Crank Sets Due to Fall Hazard PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against "Lofstedt" Action in California POLYCOM INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending PORSCHE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk POTTERY BARN: Recalls Kids' Stainless Steel Water Bottles QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement in Celera Litigation Has Initial OK QUEST MEDICAL: Recalls MPS Delivery Sets RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Stockholder Litigation SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in W.D. Tex. Case SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed in New York SANOFI AVENTIS: Recalls Allerject Sterile Auto-injectors SANTANDER CONSUMER: Steck Class Action Transferred to N.D. Tex. SEA TOWN OF GARDENS: "Ledo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens SHANGHAI DUPLICATE: "Guerrero" Suit to Recover Wages SKI-DOO: Recalls Multiple Snowmobiles Due to Fire Risk SPICE SANCTUARY: Recalls Asafoetida Products Due to Gluten ST JUDE MEDICAL: Recalls Optisure Defibrillation Leads T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case TIME WARNER: New York Class Action Stayed by December 9 TOSHIBA MEDICAL: Recalls Image-Processing Devices TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk TRITON CPTL: Faces "Pebble" Suit in California District Court VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Broadbent" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Cornell" Suit to District of Vermont VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Glowacki" Suit to D. South Carolina VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "De Britz" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hoekstra" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Labbate" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating WESTERN UNION: Shareholder Action in Colo. in Preliminary Stage WESTERN UNION: Settlement in Douglas Class Action Awaits Approval WESTERN UNION: Speedpay Fails in Bid to Dismiss Florida Action WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholders File Class Actions Over Merger WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholder Class Suit Filed Over WPZ Deal WORLD WRESTLING: Defending Lawsuits Related to Brain Injuries WORLD WRESTLING: Filed Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Ch. ********* AETNA INC: Out-of-Network Benefit Claims Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Out-of-Network Benefit Proceedings. "We are named as a defendant in several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a contract ("out- of-network providers")," the Company said. "Among other things, these lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation." "Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to our members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of our members who received services from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers. "The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020"). "In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling. "On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we would have been released from claims relating to our out-of- network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing. The medical associations were not parties to the settlement agreement. "Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120 million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. "The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As a result of this termination, we released the reserve established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax). "On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining claims." ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. intends to vigorously defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered our financial statements and projections of future earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On August 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any. ALPINE ELECTRONICS: Recalls Audio Amplifiers Due to Fire Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Posting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55692 This recall involves three Alpine Electronics audio amplifiers used in vehicles. The amplifiers are approximately 25.4 centimeters (10 inches) long x 20.32 centimeters (8 inches) wide. The amplifiers are black with silver edge pieces and the Alpine company trademark is in the center on top of the product. The following audio amplifiers are included in this recall: Model Number Parts Number Production Dates ------------ ------------ ---------------- PDR-F50 31210001-50714742 December 01, 2013 - July 01, 2015 PDR-M65 31210001-50514241 December 01, 2013 - May 01, 2015 PDR-V75 40410001-50817384 April 01, 2014 - September 01, 2015 The model and part numbers can be found on the bottom cover of the underside of the product, printed on a white composite label. The recalled products have a manufacturing defect of the power circuit board, leading to overheating and posing a fire hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product in Canada. Approximately 444 units were sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold from February 2014 to August 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Daesung Electric Co., Ltd KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF Distributor: Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. Torrance UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled amplifiers and contact an authorized Alpine dealer to arrange for a free replacement of the recalled amplifiers in their vehicle. For more information, consumers may contact Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. at 1-800-832-4101 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m. PST, Monday to Friday or visit the firm's website. To find the nearest authorized dealer, consumers may search through the company website's store locator. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Q1nTBr AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plumbers and Steamfitters Filed Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of American Express stock, filed on July 30, 2015, a suit against American Express Company, Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell for violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important information from, the public and investors relating to the financial importance of the Costco co-brand relationship to the Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew the co-brand agreement. "We intend to vigorously defend against those claims," the Company said. AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Houssain" Class Action Filed in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative class action, Houssain v. American Express Company, et al., was filed on October 16, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers of the Company under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to disclosures of the Costco co-brand relationship. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA obligations by: allowing the investment of American Express Retirement Savings Plan ("Plan") assets in American Express common stock when American Express common stock was not a prudent investment; misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts to Plan participants in connection with the administration of the Plan; and breaching certain fiduciary obligations. "We intend to vigorously defend against those claims," the Company said. AMERICAN HONDA: "Oakes" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Linda Oakes v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01076, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus). The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02925-MHW-EPD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661- MHW-EPD. The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. American Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com stevelopez@classlawgroup.com - and - David K. Stein, Esq. BRICKER & ECKLER LLP 100 S. Third Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 227-7740 Facsimile: (614) 227-2390 E-mail: dstein@bricker.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com - and - Daniel A. Spira, Esq. Johnnet S. Jones, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7274 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com simone.jones@sidley.com lkiser@sidley.com AMERICAN HONDA: "Cushing" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cushing v. American Honda Motor Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00028, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus). The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02921-MHW-EPD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661- MHW-EPD. The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its national headquarters in Torrance, California. American Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Kyle McNew, Esq. MICHIE, HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN & TWEEL, PLLC P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 951-7200 Facsimile: (434) 951-7218 E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel A. Spira, Esq. J. Simone Jones, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7274 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com simone.jones@sidley.com lkiser@sidley.com - and - Michael Mallow, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6666 E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com - and - Jason C. Hicks, Esq. WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP 1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 857-4536 Facsimile: (202) 261-0013 E-mail: jahicks@wcsr.com ASHLEY MADISON: "Deloach" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Grant Deloach, and others similarly-situated v. Avid Life Media, Inc. and Avid Dating Life, Inc. operators of the Ashley Madison Website, Case No. 4:15-cv-00299-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., November 10, 2015), seeks damages as a result of purchasing Ashley Madison services resulting to the compromise of customers' personal and confidential data to include addresses, phone number, email addresses, intimate preferences and practices and credit card information due to lack of data security measures implied and expressly marketed by Defendants. Avid Life Media and Avid Dating Life, Inc. are corporations organized and existing under the laws of Ontario, Canada and maintain principal place of business in Toronto, Canada. They own and operate various companies that operate online dating websites including the website operated under the trademark of "Ashley Madison," which advertise and sell its services throughout the U.S. Ashley Madison is an adult website that sets up extra-marital affairs based on personal data provided by its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.LP. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-596-4097 Fax: 612-339-0981 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com ra1ockridge@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Ste 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com AUTONATION INC: Defending Wage and Hour Suits in California ----------------------------------------------------------- AutoNation, Inc. is defending several purported class action lawsuits in California arising out of alleged violations of state wage and hour laws relating to compensation of automotive technicians, AutoNation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. "We establish accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. We disclose the amount accrued if material or if such disclosure is necessary for our financial statements to not be misleading. If a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have been incurred, we disclose the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss if it is material or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. Our evaluation of whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on our assessment and consultation with legal counsel regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter," the Company said. AVID LIFE: "Doe" Suit Removed to Eastern District of Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Doe v. Avid Life Media Inc., et al., Case No. 63CV-15-00600-3, was removed from the Saline County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00640-SWW to the proceeding. Avid Life Media, Inc. is a social entertainment company that operates online social networking and dating communities for women and men worldwide. The Company was founded in 2007 and is based in Toronto, Canada The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Davidson, Esq. David Louis Gershner, Esq. Stephanie A. Linam, Esq. DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD. Post Office Box 1300 Little Rock, AR 72203-1300 Telephone: (501) 374-9977 Facsimile: (501) 374-5912 E-mail: skipd@dlf-ar.com davidg@dlf-ar.com stephaniealinam@gmail.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON & VINES, PLLC 2226 Cottondale, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Facsimile: (888) 909-0505 E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com The Defendants are represented by: E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com BACK 2: Recalls Organic Chia Seed Powder Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Back 2 the Garden Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10154 Back 2 the Garden Inc. is recalling Back 2 the Garden brand Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold nationally as well as through internet sales. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Back 2 the Organic 200 g EVCH0150529-04 6 27843 15900 1 Garden Sprouted BB/MA JUL-2016 Chia Seed Powder Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/0EdC82 BARCLAYS BANK: Removes "Gallaway" Suit to Nevada District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Gallaway v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Case No. A-15-722859-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02003 to the proceeding. The Complaint purports to state three causes of action for failure to pay wages and failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Barclays Bank is a foreign corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah Lin Jones, Esq. Mark R. Thierman, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com laborlawyer@pacbell.net The Defendant is represented by: Rick D. Roskelley, Esq. Roger L. Grandgenett II, Esq. Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq. Kathryn B. Blakey, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89 169-5937 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811 E-mail: rroskelley@littler.com rgrandgenett@littler.com mpaek@littler.com kblakey@littler.com BAYLIS MEDICAL: Recalls Protrack Injectable Catheters ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55860 Baylis Medical Company is recalling lots of Protrack Microcatheter due to the possibility that the catheter may have circumferential defects along its shaft. If the affected device is used for infusions, there is a possibility of fluid leakage. Affected products: Protrack Coaxial Injectable Catheter Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: CIC 35/145 CIC 38/145 Manufacturer: Baylis Medical Company Inc. 5959 Trans-Canada Highway Montreal H4T 1A1 Ontario CANADA BLUE BIRD: Recalls 31 Units of All American Non-School Bus ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 31 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015523TC ID number: 2015523 Manufacturer recall number: R15YI-C On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks, damage or misalignment and if found to be damaged, link arms and/or platform will be replaced. Note: This recall supersedes recall 2014-359. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will require re-inspection and potential repair. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BLUE BIRD ALL AMERICAN 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 NON-SCHOOL BUS BLUE BIRD: Recalls 47 Units of All American School Bus ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 47 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015522TC ID number: 2015522 Manufacturer recall number: R15YI On certain school buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks, damage or misalignment and if found to be damaged, link arms and/or platform will be replaced. Note: This recall supersedes recall 2014-360. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will require re-inspection and potential repair. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BLUE BIRD ALL AMERICAN 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 SCHOOL BUS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Afzal" Sues for Vehicle Engine Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- David Afzal, and all others similarly-situated v. BMW of North America LLC and Bavarian Motor Works, Case No. 2:15-cv-08009-MCA- LDW (E.D. Va., November 10, 2015), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief for breach of express and implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud under the New Jersey and California consumer fraud statutes. The class action complaint arises out of numerous concerns about the defective rotating assembly in S65 engines in the Class Vehicles, including defective connecting rod bearings, defective main bearings, defective connecting rod side clearance and insufficient channels of engine lubrication that inevitably cause engine failure. BMW North America LLC, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 300 Chestnut Ridge Road in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, distributing BMW vehicles through its network of dealers in the U.S. Bavarian Motor Works is an automotive company manufacturing vehicles under the BMW brand, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business located in Munich, Bavaria, Germany with dealership al over the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Tel: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: MDS@chimicles.com JBK@chimicles.com - and - Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8729 E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com - and - Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq. THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, Eleventh Floor San Diego, CA 92103 Tel: 619-236-9363 Fax: 619-236-9653 E-mail: siminou@tbmlawyers.com BMW: Recalls 5 Series 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 301 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015517TC ID number: 2015517 Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210.2 - Lower Universal Anchorage Systems for Restraint Systems and Booster Cushions. The inboard child restraint fixture anchor on the left rear seat may have been bent downwards during vehicle assembly. This could result in a child restraint system not fully engaging both lower anchors, contrary to the requirements of the standard. In the event of a crash, if a child seat is not properly secured, it could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect the inboard lower anchor on the left rear seat, and if necessary, repair. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BMW 5 SERIES 2016 BOFI HOLDING: "Golden" Class Action Filed in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") was filed on October 15, 2015, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer under the case Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al in the United States District Court, Southern District of California on behalf of the named plaintiff and a putative, but as yet uncertified, class. The Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based upon allegations made in a complaint in a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter") filed against BofI Federal Bank, a wholly- owned subsidiary of the Company, by a former employee. The Company disputes the allegations advanced by the plaintiff in the Employment Matter, as well as the plaintiff's perception of the underlying factual circumstances, and is vigorously defending that lawsuit. The Class Action Complaint seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of all class members. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations raised in the Class Action Complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Smoke Alarm Product Due to Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2015 Posting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55594 This recall involves Bosch's Radion wireless round smoke alarms installed as part of Bosch security systems. Bosch security alarm systems use a control keypad labeled "Bosch" on the front surface. The alarms are made of white plastic and measure 14.22 centimetres across and 6.10 centimetres high (5.6 inches x 2.4 inches). The alarms have a Bosch label on the back with "RFSM-A," a bar code with "F01U263962" and a 17-digit serial number starting with 0922320XXX. The XXX in the 8th through 10th positions of the serial number designates the date code. Only alarms with date codes 001 through 458 are included in the recall. The alarms can fail to alert consumers to a fire, posing a fire hazard. Bosch Security Systems has received two reported incidents of alarms failing to sound during installation testing, with no reported injuries. Health Canada has not received any reports of injuries or incidents related to the use of these alarms. Approximately 34 recalled smoke alarms were sold in Canada at professional alarm installation dealers as part of a burglar/household fire alarm system. The recalled smoke alarms were sold from April 2014 to December 2014. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Bosch Security Systems, Inc. Fairport New York UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately contact their dealer/installer for a free replacement alarm. Bosch has contacted dealers and installers directly. For more information consumers can call Bosch Security Systems, Inc. at 1-800-289-0096 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET or visit the firm's website and click on Service and Support, then Customer Service and Presales, then Related Links and go to Technical Bulletins and Safety Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. The Plaintiff is represented by: http://is.gd/NiBe5X BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Posting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55590 This voluntary recall involves six models of Burley Design child bicycle trailers manufactured from 2009 to 2015. The trailers allow cyclists to tow children behind their bicycles while riding. The trailers are connected to the bicycle by a tow bar, which attaches to the rear axle of the bicycle on one end and to a tow bar receiver on the trailer at the other end. The tow bar receiver is on the front left side of the trailer as it faces the rear wheel of the bicycle. Recalled trailers have a black plastic tow bar receiver with an integrated wheel guard. Recalled trailers can be identified by the first four characters of the serial numbers on the trailer. The serial number is on a sticker in the rear cargo area behind the seat of the trailer on the left inside frame bar. The following six trailer models and serial numbers are being recalled: Model Serial Numbers ----- -------------- Cub K943 Rental Cub K943 D'Lite and D948 and K948 D'Lite ST Encore K942 Solo and D939, K939 and KK939 Solo ST Trailers with aluminum tow bar receivers are not included in the recall. Trailers with black plastic tow bar receivers can separate from the tow bar, posing a crash hazard to the child in the trailer. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents of injuries related to the use of these products. Burley Design has received 35 reports of trailers with black plastic tow bar receivers separating from the tow bar in the United States, including two incidents that resulted in abrasions to a child. Approximately 820 units of the recalled trailers were sold in Canada and about 34,000 units were distributed in the United States. The recalled trailers were sold from January 2009 to October 2015 at sporting goods stores, bike shops and online retailers in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in China. Importer: Burley Design LLC Eugene Oregon UNITED STATES Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/XsM2Sa CAMPBELL COMPANY: Recalls Ready to Serve Soup Products ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 28, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Campbell Company of Canada Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10117 Code(s) on Brand name Common name Size product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ---------- --- Campbell's Chunky 420 ml OCT 20 2016 0 63211- Chicken P8039 RR MD 16755 9 Noodle Ready 08215 to Serve Soup Campbell's Chunky Beef 420 ml NOV 08 2016 0 63211- Ready to EST4R RR MB 16754 2 Serve Soup 09095 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in NY Action Entered Into MOU ------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the class action in the New York Supreme Court have entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. The Company said, "As described in our Proxy Statement filed August 20, 2015, in connection with the formerly proposed Comcast- TWC merger, eight putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of purported TWC stockholders in the New York Supreme Court (the "NY Actions") and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These complaints named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger, and that Comcast aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further alleged that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the SEC on March 20, 2014 was misleading or omitted certain material information. The complaints sought, among other relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief and costs and fees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, conditioned on the consummation of the Comcast-TWC merger. Now that the Comcast-TWC merger agreement has been terminated, this settlement agreement is no longer operative." Following the announcement of the mergers on May 26, 2015, on June 29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a stipulation agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), and dismissing the action with prejudice as to Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. After the court so ordered the stipulation, the plaintiffs in the NY Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter and its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other relief, an injunction against the stockholder vote on the mergers, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys' fees. On September 9, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU, defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the transactions between TWC and Charter, and must be approved by the New York Supreme Court. In the event that the New York Supreme Court does not approve the settlement, the defendants intend to defend against any further litigation. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Not Yet Responded to Delaware Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Charter has not yet responded to the class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On August 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The lawsuit is captioned Sciabacucchi v. Liberty Broadband Corp., C.A. No. 11418-VCG (the "Delaware Action"), and names as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N. On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and the Proxy. In return, the plaintiff agreed his disclosure claims were moot and withdrew his application to enjoin the Transactions. The defendants in the Delaware Action believe that the complaint is without merit. Charter has not yet responded to this suit but intends to deny any liability and believes that it has substantial defenses. CLECO CORPORATION: 2nd Amended Class Action Petition Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation on October 17, 2014, entered into the Merger Agreement with Cleco Partners L.P., and Cleco Merger Sub, Inc., providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Cleco Corporation, with Cleco Corporation surviving the Merger as an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger each outstanding share of Cleco Corporation common stock, par value $1.00 per share (other than shares that are owned by Cleco Corporation, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, or any other direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners or Cleco Corporation), will be converted into the right to receive $55.37 per share in cash, without interest, with all dividends payable before the effective time of the Merger. A Special Meeting of Shareholders of Cleco Corporation was held on February 26, 2015, in Pineville, Louisiana to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement. Cleco Corporation received approval of the Merger Agreement by a vote of approximately 77% of shares of common stock of Cleco Corporation entitled to be cast. Cleco Partners L.P., a Delaware limited partnership that prior to the closing of the Merger will be owned by a consortium of investors, including funds or investment vehicles managed by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, John Hancock Financial, and other infrastructure investors. Cleco Corp. and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also allege that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including an injunction against the Merger and monetary damages, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co- lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014- 11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages, which is now the operative petition in that action. Each petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco's exceptions have been fully briefed and will be set for hearing at a later date. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Remanded --------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation have been remanded back to the federal district court. CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in five class action lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: full consideration damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorney fees. After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases. The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision and remanded the case to the district court judge for further proceedings. The appellate court found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in April 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision. The cases have been remanded back to the federal district court. These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. COCA-COLA: 3 Merger Class Actions Filed in Del. Chancery -------------------------------------------------------- Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. on August 6, 2015, entered into agreements with The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), Coca-Cola Iberian Partners (CCIP), the privately-owned Coca-Cola bottler operating primarily in Spain and Portugal, and Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetranke (CCEAG), the wholly-owned TCCC bottler operating in Germany, related to a pending merger. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that in connection with the agreements entered into between the Company, TCCC, CCIP, and CCEAG on August 6, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court between the announcement date and the present. The Company said, "The lawsuits are similar and assert claims on behalf of our shareholders for various alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the agreements. The lawsuits name us, our Board of Directors, CCIP, CCEAG, CCEP, and TCCC as defendants. Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the transaction, to rescind the transaction if it is consummated and allow termination damages, and to recover other damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses." The cases as filed are: Wilhelm v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 11492-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 10, 2015), Ackerman v. Brock, et al., No. 11501-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 11, 2015), and Freedman v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 11533-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2015). "We believe the cases to be without merit and intend to defend them vigorously." COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing on the motion to dismiss a class action was held on October 13, 2015 but a ruling regarding the motion to dismiss has not been made. On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv- 05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding our financial results, business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26, 2015, and the plaintiff's filed their opposition brief on July 1, 2015. The Company's reply was filed on August 24, 2015 and a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on October 13, 2015 but a ruling regarding the motion to dismiss has not been made. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend itself and its officers vigorously. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses that it may experience. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. As of September 30, 2015 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter. CVR PARTNERS: Faces Mustard Class Suit Related to Rentech Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVR Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed on August 29, 2015, a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Mustard Lawsuit"). The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could cause the Partnership not to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been recognized in these condensed consolidated financial statements regarding the lawsuits. CVR PARTNERS: Faces Sloan Class Action Related to Rentech Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVR Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed on October 6, 2015, a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, CVR Partners, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Sloan Lawsuit"). The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the attempted sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and the Rentech Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the partnership agreement and their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the merger agreement and failing to disclose material information to unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated fiduciary duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen based primarily on allegations of inadequate consideration, restrictive deal protection devices and improper disclosure, (iii) each of the defendants aided and abetted in the foregoing breaches described in items (i) and (ii), and (iv) Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder based on improper disclosure contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-206982), which was filed with the SEC by CVR Partners on September 17, 2015. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could cause the Partnership not to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been recognized in these condensed consolidated financial statements regarding the lawsuits. DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Additional Ignition Switch Class Action Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delphi Automotive PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an additional class action related to the GM Ignition Switch Recall has been filed. In the first quarter of 2014, GM, Delphi's largest customer, initiated a product recall related to ignition switches. Delphi received requests for information from, and cooperated with, various government agencies related to this ignition switch recall. In addition, Delphi was initially named as a co-defendant along with GM (and in certain cases other parties) in class action and product liability lawsuits related to this matter. During the second quarter of 2014, all of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Two consolidated amended class action complaints were filed in the District Court during the fourth quarter of 2014. Delphi was not named as a defendant in either complaint. An additional class action complaint, brought outside of the consolidated class actions mentioned above, named Delphi as a defendant. Delphi believes the allegations contained in this additional class action are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them. Although no assurances can be made as to the ultimate outcome of these or any other future claims, Delphi does not believe a loss is probable and, accordingly, no reserve has been made as of September 30, 2015. DIONO: Recalls Multiple Booster Seat Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Booster Seat Notification type: Compliance TC System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 2518 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015515TC ID number: 2015515 Certain booster seats may not comply with the requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety Regulations. The seat fabric does not meet flammability requirements specified in the regulations. This could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Owners will be supplied with replacement fabric seat covers. Click here for more information Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- DIONO 2014, 2015 DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Facing "Hansen" Class Action in N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2015, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on their cellular and residential telephones without their express consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff. DISTRIBUTION EPICERIE: Recalls Pesto Products Due to Milk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Distribution Epicerie C.T.S. Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10138 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Mediterranean Red Pesto 180 g All codes where 8 005391- Classics milk is not 210863 Campagna declared on the label and all codes where "noix de cajou" are not declared in French on the label. Mediterranean Green Pesto 180 g All codes where 8 005391- Classics milk is not 210861 Campagna declared on the label and all codes where "noix de cajou" are not declared in French on the label. EMCOR GROUP: Remainder of Funds to be Paid Before Yearend --------------------------------------------------------- Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that during 2015, a payment of $1.0 million was made to a third party claims administrator who is holding the funds pending approval by the Court of the consent decree, and the remainder is expected to be paid before the end of 2015. "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by six employees of USM's California janitorial subcontractors," the Company said. "The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial subcontractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time period. "We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs." On February 17, 2015, USM and its Customer entered into a consent decree which, subject to final approval of the consent decree by the federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California following a determination by the Court of the consent decree's fairness, adequacy and reasonableness,will resolve the claims and defenses asserted in the class action. Under the terms of the consent decree, USM is to (a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the class representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act payments to the State of California for an immaterial amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and administration of the claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the class an aggregate of $1.3 million, of which $0.2 million is to be allocated for their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and $1.1 million is to be allocated for attorneys' fees, and (c) establish procedures to monitor USM's California subcontractors providing janitorial services to its Customer designed principally to ensure janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no less than minimum wage. The settlement amount was accrued for as of December 31, 2014. During 2015, a payment of $1.0 million was made to a third party claims administrator who is holding the funds pending approval by the Court of the consent decree, and the remainder is expected to be paid before the end of 2015. FAIRWAY GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Judge Tossed Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a district judge has granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February and March 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits alleging the violation of the federal securities laws were filed against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering. The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950. On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants. The complaint sought unspecified damages and alleged misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications regarding the Company's business and financial results. On September 9, 2015, the district judge to whom the case was assigned granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case. FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Reaches Settlement in Daisy Case --------------------------------------------------------- Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that Pollo Operations, Inc. has reached a settlement in the class action filed by Daisy, Inc. On September 29, 2014, Daisy, Inc., an automotive repair shop in Cape Coral, Florida, filed a putative class action suit against Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Pollo Operations, Inc. ("Pollo") in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit claims that Pollo allegedly engaged in unlawful activity in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Sec. 227 et seq. occurring in December 2010 and January 2011. As of September 27, 2015, Pollo has reached a settlement with the plaintiff and has recorded a charge of $0.7 million to cover the estimated costs related to the settlement, which include estimated payments to class members, plaintiffs attorneys' fees and related settlement administration costs, but does not include legal fees incurred by Pollo in defending the action. The settlement, which is subject only to approval by the Court, will result in dismissal of the case. FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Model Due to Noncompliance ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 27, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015508TC ID number: 2015508 Manufacturer recall number: 15C13 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) 210.1 - User-ready Tether Anchorages for Restraint Systems and (CMVSS) 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Front and rear seat belts may have been damaged prior to installation and may fail to conform to CMVSS 209 assembly performance standards, and the strength requirements of the CMVSS 210.1 standard. These issues could result in the belts not adequately restraining occupants in a crash, increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace both front seatbelt retractors and pretensioners as well as both rear seatbelt retractors, rear seatbelt buckles, and rear child safety seat tether anchors. Affected products Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD MUSTANG 2016 FORD: Recalls E450 Cutaway Chassis 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 27, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 7 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015510TC ID number: 2015510 Manufacturer recall number: 15S32 On certain cutaway chassis vehicles equipped with 6.8L engines and optional trailer brake controllers, during tow operation, the integrated trailer brake controller may not actuate the trailer brakes when the driver depresses the brake pedal. There would be no warning to the driver that vehicle braking does not actuate the trailer brakes, which could increase stopping distances, potentially resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD E450 CUTAWAY 2016 CHASSIS CAB GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Roberts" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled Roberts v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-00320, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13584-FDS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant. GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a limited liability corporation based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. GSK designed, manufactured or distributed Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit. Zofran is a drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting from chemotherapy or radiation therapy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristian Rasmussen, Esq. CORY WATSON P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-2200 E-mail: krasmussen@corywatson.com - and - Stephen Ray Hunt, Jr., Esq. CORY, WATSON, CROWDER & DEGARIS 2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205-2854 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 E-mail: shunt@cwcd.com - and - Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com - and - M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. Thomas V. Ayala, Esq. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 The Defendant is represented by: Bryan A. Coleman, Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 Facsimile: (205) 714-6498 E-mail: bcoleman@maynardcooper.com - and - Maibeth J. Porter, Esq. MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1000 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com GNC HOLDINGS: Faces 33 Lawsuits Related to DMAA/Aegeline Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of September 30, 2015, the Company was named in approximately 33 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from its stores in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of September 30, 2015, the Company was named in approximately 33 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. One of the personal injury suits in which the Company is named, Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf of Michael Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013- 00034663-CU-PL-CTL), filed February 13, 2013, is the subject of pending motions for summary judgment filed by the Company, while the trial previously scheduled for June 2015 has been postponed until February 2016. As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party vendor with regard to these matters, although the Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendor and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to its insurer. GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Brewer Case Postponed to February 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the trial in the California Wage and Break Claims filed by Charles Brewer has been postponed until February 2016. In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 11CV3587). In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and assistant store managers, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a California class, and granted Defendant's Motion for Decertification of FLSA Collective Action. In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in August 2015. The trial in this matter previously scheduled for November 2015 has been postponed until February 2016. As of September 30, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Naranjo" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a class action filed by Elizabeth Naranjo. In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626). The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break, and overtime violations. In October 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class of approximately 900 current and former managers. A mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims. As of September 30, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Cranberry Ginger Dressing -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gourmet Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10130 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Stonewall Cranberry 11 oz 30NOV2016 7 11381 31681 8 Kitchen Ginger Dressing GREAT DANE: Recalls 2016 Heavy Trailer Model Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Heavy Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 40 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015520TC ID number: 2015520 On certain trailers, the PRO-TORQ axle spindle nut keeper/retaining clips may not have been properly seated or may have been omitted. Disengagement or omission of the axle nut keeper/retaining clips could lead to excessive wheel end play and result in a loss of control, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Also, should a wheel separate from the vehicle, it could pose a danger to nearby motorists or bystanders, which could result in injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the PRO-TORQ wheel end retainer clips, and repair as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GREAT DANE 2016 HONDA: Recalls 2016 CR-V Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 17 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015513TC ID number: 2015513 On certain vehicles, the airbag inflator contained in the driver frontal airbag module may have been improperly stamped and/or contains a defect in the material used to manufacture the airbag inflator's metal housing, which, in the event of airbag deployment, may cause inflator components to separate. If the inflator components separate, this could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the driver frontal airbag module. Note: All affected units are still in the possession of dealers, and will be corrected before delivery. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA CR-V 2016 HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata 2015, 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 3378 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015516TC ID number: 2015516 Manufacturer recall number: R0103 (51CA19) Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 135 - Brake Systems. If an ABS malfunction occurs during vehicle operation, the ABS warning lamp may fail to illuminate, contrary to the requirements of the standard. This could allow an ABS malfunction to go undetected by the driver, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will update ABS control software. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HYUNDAI SONATA 2015, 2016 IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in N.D. Ill. Action ------------------------------------------------------- IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In November 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff, Scott Redman, alleges that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain credit card and debit card receipts to customers that were purportedly not in compliance with the applicable truncation requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages individually and on behalf of a putative class. On February 20, 2014, IMAX Chicago Theatre filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied on January 23, 2015. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. IMAX Chicago Theatre believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. INTEL CORPORATION: Class Certification Hearing in December 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that a hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is scheduled to take place in December 2015. At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. "These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation)," the Company said. "Like the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors. We dispute these class-action claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously." "All of the federal and state class actions other than the California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by us. "In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report, and a hearing on those objections was held before the district court in July 2013. "In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in October 2014. In December 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. "We subsequently negotiated a settlement of the claims and the case was dismissed in September 2015," All California class actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class certification, which we are in the process of opposing. "At our request, the court in the California actions agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings," the Company said. The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class certification. The court granted plaintiffs' request in February 2015 and the hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is, scheduled to take place in December 2015. "Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters," the Company said. INTEL CORPORATION: Paid Settlement Amount in HTEAL Case ------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that the Company made its settlement payment in October 2015 in the High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class action lawsuits in the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and in September 2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants' alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so- called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former technical, creative, and R&D employees at each of the defendants. In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied in March 2014. In April 2014, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, but in August 2014, the district court denied preliminary approval of the settlement. In September 2014, defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit ordered briefing and scheduled a March 2015 hearing date on the writ petition. Defendants have withdrawn the petition for writ of mandamus in light of the settlement agreement. In January 2015, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached a second agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which the court preliminarily approved in March 2015. The court held a final fairness hearing in July 2015, and, in September 2015, gave its final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment in the lawsuit. "We made our settlement payment in October 2015, which we accrued for in our operating expenses for 2014," the Company said. "Although we disputed the plaintiffs' claims, we agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and diversion of resources from continued litigation." INTEL CORPORATION: Appeal in McAfee Shareholder Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that the appeal in the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation remains pending. "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share," the Company said. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount," the Company said. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. "Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter," the Company said. "We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." INVENSENSE INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on October 7, 2015, in the class action by shareholders. In January and March of 2015, purported shareholders filed five substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v. InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11, 2015). On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the "Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that motion was held on October 7, 2015. KM IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Milk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: K.M. Imports Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10137 K.M. Imports Inc. is recalling Karibbean Flavours brand Coconut Milk Powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Karibbean Coconut 50 g All codes where 8 18253 00807 6 Flavours Milk milk is not Powder declared on the label. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xjtwZC LAOS: Faces California Class Action Over Government Atrocities -------------------------------------------------------------- Hmong I, and others similarly-situated v. Choummaly Sayasone, Thongsing Thammavong, Bounkert Sangsomsack, Sengnuan Xayalath and Thongbanh Sengaphone, Case No. 2:15-cv-02349-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., November 12, 2015), seeks full compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, appropriate protective orders and attorneys fees available under the Alien Tort Claims Act and specific violations of the 1973 Vientiane Ceasefire Agreement, 1962 Geneva Convention and the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Hmong I, a fictitious name, lost her husband during an aggressive campaign against the Hmong people pursuant to the Pathet Laos Paper that seeks to exterminate them. Her people suffered rape, mutilation, torture, disembowelment, poisoning vis-a-vis poisoning of the water and food systems and murder. Choummaly Sayasone is President of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Thongsing Thammavong is the Prime Minister of Laos, Dr. Bounkert Sangsomsack is the Minister of Justice of Laos, Lieutenant General Sengnuan Xayalath is the Minister of Defense. Thongbanh Sengaphone is the Minister of Public Security. The Plaintiff is represented by: Herman Franck, Esq. Elizabeth Vogel, Esq. FRANCK & ASSOCIATES 1801 7th Street, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95811 Tel: (916) 447-8400 Fax: (916) 447-0720 LARIVIERE PARKING: "Cappelli" Suit Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Miguel Naranjo Cappelli, and others similarly-situated v. Lariviere Parking Systems LLC, Case 1:15-cv-24235-PCH (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours a week for a period of three years in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lariviere Parking Systems LLC is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida and provides building facilities maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM LIVE NATION: Briefing Next Year on Appeals in Ticketing Fees Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that appeals related to the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation have been consolidated and will be briefed in 2016. In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009, which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted certification of a class on the first and second causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees. The class would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to Decertify Class. In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation continued, and later that same month, the Court granted in part and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court in April 2014. In February 2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for final approval of the settlement. Several objectors to the settlement appealed the Court's final approval ruling. Those appeals have been consolidated and will be briefed in 2016. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement referred to above. The calculation of this liability is based in part upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be material. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the appeal in a Maryland class action filed by several former Marriott employees is pending. On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those set forth in the awards. The action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman were the remaining named plaintiffs. Class certification was denied, and on January 16, 2015, the court granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Company has cross-appealed on statute of limitations grounds. MASTERCARD INCORPORATED: District Court Order Reversed ------------------------------------------------------ MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Court of Appeals has reversed the district court's order and sent the ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints back for further proceedings. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non- bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. MCNEILUS TRUCK: Recalls 41 Vehicles Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 2, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 41 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015519TC ID number: 2015519 On certain vehicles outfitted with an optional hydraulic test port tube, the tube could crack or break due to fatigue. This could allow high pressure hydraulic fluid to spray onto nearby hot exhaust or turbo components, which could increase the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: McNeilus will provide a Technical Service Bulletin to show how to remove the optional hydraulic test port tube and cap off the valve. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Actions Consolidated in N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that several class action complaints have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees. On June 1, 2015, Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group filed a motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market manipulation and attempted manipulation. Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief. On June 4, 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action," the Company said. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: TalentBin Faces Consumer Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that TalentBin, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, was served on or about October 12, 2015, with notice of a purported consumer class action for allegedly assembling, scoring and sharing candidate profiles in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. The lawsuit, entitled Eric Halvorson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15 548270), was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, statutory penalties of between one hundred dollars and one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages and other costs and attorney's fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter and is currently unable to estimate any potential losses. NEUSTAR INC: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for December 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- NeuStar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a final hearing before the Alexandria Division is scheduled for December 3, 2015. On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, or the Alexandria Division, against the Company and certain of its senior executive officers. The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased the Company's securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive relief. On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint. On December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a reply brief to the IPRS opposition. The Alexandria Division heard oral arguments on the motions on January 22, 2015 and on January 27, 2015, and issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with prejudice. On February 25, 2015, counsel for IPRS filed a notice of appeal. On July 28, 2015, the IPRS, on behalf of itself and the proposed settlement class, on the one hand, and certain of the Company's senior executive officers on the other hand, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Alexandria Division, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement of the claims. The Alexandria Division granted preliminary approval on September 22, 2015. The final hearing before the Alexandria Division is scheduled for December 3, 2015. As of September 30, 2015, the impact of the proposed settlement amount is not material to the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome 2016 Models ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System:Power train Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015512TC ID number: 2015512 Certain motorhomes built on Ford F-53 and F-59 chassis may have been built with an incorrect shift cable bracket. This could allow the transmission to be shifted into reverse without the brakes being applied, which could increase the risk of unintended vehicle movement, potentially resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Ford authorized service centers will replace and adjust the shift cable bracket. Affected products Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NEWMAR CANYON STAR 2016, 2016, 2016 CLASS A MOTORHOME NEWMAR BAY STAR CLASS A 2016 MOTORHOME NXSTAGE MEDICAL: Recalls Portable Hemodialysis Systems ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55866 NxStage has identified a software error in the NxStage System One S Cycler Model No. Nx1000-3 with software versions 4.9 and 4.10. If specific conditions are met and a software error does occur, the ultrafiltration (UF) volume target will not decrease during the treatment even if the uf pump is running. Affected products: NxStage System One-Cycler (Chronic Application) Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: Not Applicable Manufacturer: NxStage Medical, Inc. 350 Merrimack Street Lawrence 01843 Massachusetts UNITED STATES ORMCO CORPORATION: Recalls Orthodontic Archwires ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 2, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55988 The label on the Copper Ni-Ti Preformed Archwire, an orthodontic archwire, indicates the transformation temperature as 40 degrees centigrade, but the actual transformation temperature is 29 degrees centigrade due to the second heat treatment being skipped in manufacturing. Affected products: Tru-Arch Lot or serial number: 021538339 Model or catalog number: 211-0952 Manufacturer: Ormco Corporation 1332 South Lone Hill Avenue Glendora 91740 California UNITED STATES OTTO BOCK: Recalls Triton Prosthetic Foot Products -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55854 Affected Products: Triton Smart Ankle When sitting, the prosthetic foot can go into the 'relief function' and move the footplate towards the ground if this function is not switched off or if the foot is in stand-by mode. When operating machines with foot pedals, the possibility is given that the foot -- unnoticed by the user -- activates the 'relief function' and for example get stuck under the foot pedal. The foot pedal can be blocked and this could lead to a hazardous situation. Also, an iOS software issue has been identified where the restricted range for dorsiflexion in the 'relief function' does not save when the re-training is done via iOS Galileo application. Lot or serial number: Not applicable Model or catalog number: 1C66* Manufacturer: Otto Bock Healthcare GMBH MAX NADER STRABE 15 DUDERSTADT 37115 GERMANY OUTDOOR GEAR: Recalls Bicycle Crank Sets Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Posting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55086 This recall involves Eclat Aeon bicycle crank set and WTP Envy BLK Titan bicycles equipped with Aeon crankset. The crank set can be identified by the "AEON" logo close to the pedal boss. "ECLAT ESS 22MM" is etched on the end of the spindle. The following crank sets and bicycles are included in this recall: Product Description Size Colour UPC ------- ----------- ---- ------ --- Eclat Aeon 2 pc Crank 170 mm Black 4055822002455 Eclat Aeon 2 pc Crank 175 mm Black 4055822002486 Eclat Aeon 2 pc Crank 170 mm Green 4555822002462 Eclat Aeon 2 pc Crank 175 mm Green 4055822002493 Eclat Aeon 2 pc Crank 170 mm Chrome 4555822002462 Eclat Aeon 2 pc Crank 175 mm Chrome 4055822002509 WTP Envy 0.5" Black 4055822001205 Bicycle Titan WTP Envy 21" Black 4055822001212 Bicycle Titan The crank set may break, posing a fall hazard to the rider. Neither Health Canada nor Outdoor Gear Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these bicycle crank sets. In Germany and Belgium, WeMakeThings has received five reports of the crank breaking at the spindle. No injuries were reported. Approximately 78 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 240 units were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from April 2015 to July 2015 in Canada. Manufactured in Taiwan. Manufacturer: We Make Things GmbH Koln/Cologne GERMANY Distributor: Outdoor Gear Canada Montreal Quebec CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/NDRoLt PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against "Lofstedt" Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2015, that the Company is prepared to vigorously defend a class action by Jason Lofstedt in California state court. On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes its subsidiary has meritorious defenses to each of the claims in the lawsuit and is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company's subsidiary will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. The Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. POLYCOM INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Polycom, Inc. and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a class action are pending, Polycom said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's expense submissions and the Company's internal controls. The lawsuit further alleged that the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed a second complaint on May 4, 2015. Polycom and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 26, 2015. Those motions are pending. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action lawsuit. PORSCHE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 3490 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015514TC ID number: 2015514 Manufacturer recall number: AF06 On certain vehicles, a defect in the fuel low pressure line could result in a fuel smell and/or fuel leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will install an improved fuel low pressure fuel line. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- PORSCHE 2015, 2016, 2015, 2016 POTTERY BARN: Recalls Kids' Stainless Steel Water Bottles --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2015 Posting date: October 28, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55598 This recall involves the Avengers and Darth Vader themed stainless steel water bottles. The Avengers bottle has images of Thor, The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man. The Darth Vader bottle has an image of Darth Vader and the Death Star. The water bottles are grey and have a blue or black plastic top, a vacuum-valve stopper and are 13.75 centimetres tall by 6.87 centimetres in diameter. The bottom of the bottle has one of the following date codes imprinted on it: 12/2013, 8/2014, or 12/2014. The price sticker affixed to the bottom of the bottles have the following SKU numbers: SKU Number Character ---------- --------- 7607161 Darth Vader 7939721 Avengers The grey paint on the metal portion of the water bottle can contain levels of lead in excess of legal standards. Neither Health Canada, the CPSC, nor Pottery Barn Kids has received any reports of incidents. For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead exposure, visit Reduce your exposure to lead. Approximately 430 units were sold at various Pottery Barn Kids locations across Canada. Approximately 15,200 units were sold in the USA. The recalled products were sold in Canada from June 2014 to September 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Amax Enterprises (HK) Limited CHINA Distributor: Pottery Barn Kids San Francisco California UNITED STATES Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/43W2yS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement in Celera Litigation Has Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has preliminarily approved the settlement in the Celera Corp. securities litigation. In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the District Court against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. Celera and the director and officer defendants have reached an agreement to settle this action, which the court has preliminarily approved. The settlement is fully covered by insurance. QUEST MEDICAL: Recalls MPS Delivery Sets ---------------------------------------- Starting date: October 29, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55974 The identified lots of MPS Delivery Sets have shown a possible seal failure along the blood source channel of main pump cassette, resulting in blood loss from the bypass circuit and interruption of cardioplegia solution delivery. Affected products: A. MPS Delivery Set w/arrest agent and additive cassette Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 5001102 Manufacturer: Quest Medical, Inc. ONE ALLENTOWN PARKWAY Allen 75002 Texas UNITED STATES B. MPS Delivery Set Lot or serial number: 0492205E03 0492765E07 0493695U04 0494485U07 0495965G04 0497265S02 049925G02 Model or catalog number: 5001102AS 7001102 Manufacturer: Quest Medical, Inc. ONE ALLENTOWN PARKWAY Allen 75002 Texas UNITED STATES RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Stockholder Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that all discovery has been stayed in the Stockholder Litigation pending the court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and Benson K. Woo. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 11, 2015. The case is a purported class action alleging securities laws violations, primarily related to claims the Company failed to record adequate environmental reserves related to disposed operations which, the plaintiffs allege led to a decrease in the Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and January 28, 2015. The allegations are couched as violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On September 16, 2015, the case against Mr. Ruperto was dismissed by the plaintiffs. All discovery has been stayed pending the court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The Company strongly believes the amended complaint and its allegations to be baseless and without merit, and will continue to vigorously defend this action. This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in W.D. Tex. Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company intends to appeal the final judgment of the Western District of Texas to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to collect and remit these taxes. "We disagree with the jury's finding and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case," the Company said. SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed in New York ---------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that two putative class action lawsuits (with virtually identical complaints) were filed on July 14, 2015 and July 20, 2015, against the Company and two other GDSs, in the Federal District Court of New York, Southern Division. In August 2015, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the second lawsuit that was filed on July 20, 2015. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the GDSs conspired to, for example, negotiate for full content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws. Although the amount of damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs has not been asserted to date, the plaintiffs are also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. "We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims," the Company said. SANOFI AVENTIS: Recalls Allerject Sterile Auto-injectors -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55688 Potential device defect affecting delivery of drug to patient. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers/distributors, pharmacies, hospitals and health care professionals across Canada. Affected products: Allerject 0.15 mg / 0.15 mL DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02382059 Dosage form: Sterile auto-injector Strength: Epinephrine 0.15 mg / 0.15 mL Lot or serial number: 3060865 2974282 2883603 2857508 2692155 2654767 2546918 2506422 2081284 2081285 3060862 2974283 2883600 2857505 2692158 2654764 2546909 2506413 2144101 2081287 2113805 Recalling Firm: Sanofi Aventis (Canada) Inc. 2905 Louis R. Renaud Place Laval H7V 0A3 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Sanofi Aventis (Canada) Inc. 2905 Louis R. Renaud Place Laval H7V 0A3 Quebec CANADA SANTANDER CONSUMER: Steck Class Action Transferred to N.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the venue of the Steck class action lawsuit has been transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas. On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (the "Steck Lawsuit"). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's initial public offering. Each lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering. Each complaint alleged that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained misleading statements concerning the Company's auto lending business and underwriting practices. Each lawsuit asserted claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages and other relief. In February 2015, the purported class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Steck Lawsuit was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas. SEA TOWN OF GARDENS: "Ledo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Manuel Ledo, and all others similarly situated v. Sea Town Of Gardens, Corp. 1:15-cv-24234-UU Document 1 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2015) seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly for the past three years and damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sea Town of Gardens, Corp is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, operating restaurants within Miami under "Snappers Fish & Chicken." The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish, Allergen - Fish, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corporation (ON) Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10134 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Cuisine Sweet Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Mango & anchovy, mustard, 740003 Banana and oyster are not declared on the label Cuisine Sour Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Tomato & anchovy, mustard 739984 Yogurt and sand lance are not declared on the label Cuisine Rich Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Roasted anchovy, mustard 739991 Garlic & and sand lance Onion are not declared on the label SHANGHAI DUPLICATE: "Guerrero" Suit to Recover Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Horpinel Cantoran-Guerrero, Narbol Cantoranguerrero and Migdalio Temac-Miranda v. Shanghai Duplicate Corp. Case No. 1:15-cv-08868 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2015) seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Shanghai Duplicate Corp. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with principal place of business at 9 Pell Street, New York, New York 10013. It operates a restaurant business under the "Joe's Shanghai" brand with two other restaurants in New York City under the same brand located at 24 West 56th Street and 136-21 37th Avenue, Flushing, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 6th Floor, 708 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 SKI-DOO: Recalls Multiple Snowmobiles Due to Fire Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Snowmobile Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 2680 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015518TC ID number: 2015518 On certain snowmobiles, the fuel hose assembly may have internal damage which could lead to a fuel leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel hose assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SKI-DOO GSX SE 600 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016 SKI-DOO MX Z TNT 600 2016 SKI-DOO MX Z X 800 2016 SKI-DOO MX Z X 600 2016 SKI-DOO MX Z X-RS 800 2016 SKI-DOO RENEGADE 2016 ADRENALINE 600 SKI-DOO RENEGADE 2016 BACKCOUNTRY 600 SKI-DOO RENEGADE X 800 2016 SKI-DOO SUMMIT SP 800 2016 SKI-DOO SUMMIT SP 600 2016 SKI-DOO SUMMIT X 800 2016 SPICE SANCTUARY: Recalls Asafoetida Products Due to Gluten ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 27, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Spice Sanctuary Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10141 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Spice Asafoetida 25 g Lot 53265 X000RXKLS7 Sanctuary (Hing) - 571001 or Gluten & 8 95344 00059 1 Grain Free ST JUDE MEDICAL: Recalls Optisure Defibrillation Leads ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 2, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55864 During the manufacturing process of a limited number of Optisure leads, a trim technique used to remove excess medical adhesive around the superior vena cava (SVC) shock coil may have introduced damage to the lead's insulation. Affected products: OPTISURE DEFIBRILLATION LEAD (ACTIVE FIXATION) Lot or serial number: S/N BRG010437 S/N BRL010010 Model or catalog number: LDA220Q LDA230Q Manufacturer: St. Jude Medical, Cardiac Rhythm Management Division 15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT Sylmar 91342 California UNITED STATES T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish, Allergen - Fish, Allergen -- Mustard Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10121 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Cuisine Sweet Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Mango & anchovy, mustard, 740003 Banana and oyster are not declared on the label Cuisine Sour Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Tomato & anchovy, mustard 739984 Yogurt and sand lance are not declared on the label Cuisine Rich Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Roasted anchovy, mustard 739991 Garlic & and sand lance Onion are not declared on the label Cuisine Soft Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Cheese & anchovy, mustard 745930 Coconut and oyster are not declared on the label Cuisine Spicy Curry 108 g All codes where 8 801052- of Seafood anchovy, mustard 745923 and sand lance are not declared on the label TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company remains a defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. TIME WARNER: New York Class Action Stayed by December 9 ------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that all litigation deadlines in a class action in New York are stayed pending negotiation, execution of a settlement agreement by December 9, 2015. In connection with the formerly proposed Comcast merger, eight putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of purported TWC stockholders in the New York Supreme Court (the "NY Actions") and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These complaints named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the Comcast Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and that Comcast aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further alleged that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 20, 2014 was misleading or omitted certain material information. The complaints sought, among other relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief and costs and fees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, conditioned inter alia on the consummation of the Comcast merger. Now that the Comcast Merger Agreement has been terminated, the settlement is no longer operative, although the plaintiffs have the right to petition the court for the award of attorneys' fees and TWC has the right to oppose that application. Following the announcement of the Charter merger on May 26, 2015, on June 29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a stipulation agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), and dismissing with prejudice Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. After the court so ordered the stipulation, the plaintiffs in the NY Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint names as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the Charter Merger Agreement and approving the Charter merger, and that Charter and its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the shareholder vote on the Charter merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees. On September 9, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), which reflects an agreement in principle to settle the case. Pursuant to the MOU, all litigation deadlines are stayed pending negotiation, execution of a settlement agreement by December 9, 2015, and final approval of the agreement. The Company believes that the claims asserted against it are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not consummated, intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. TOSHIBA MEDICAL: Recalls Image-Processing Devices ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55862 By the inappropriate processing of the software for the image- processing device (HDR-08A), one-shot images are saved as black images in the hard disk, and they are displayed as black images on the system monitor, even though these images are displayed normally on the live monitor. Affected products: A. DIGITAL FLUOROGRAPHY SYSTEM Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: HDR-08A Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation 1385 Shimoishigami OTAWARA-SHI 324-8550 JAPAN B. ULTIMAX-I Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: DREX-U180_/K1 DREX-UI80_/K2 Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation 1385 Shimoishigami OTAWARA-SHI 324-8550 JAPAN C. REMOTE CONTRL R/F SYSTEM ZEXIRA - MAIN UNIT Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: DREX-ZX80_/K4 Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation 1385 Shimoishigami OTAWARA-SHI 324-8550 JAPAN TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 6274 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015521TC ID number: 2015521 Manufacturer recall number: SRC R11 / SRC R12 On certain vehicles equipped with Pre-Collision System (PCS), the system could unexpectedly activate while operating the vehicle. Under certain situations, the system may interpret a steel joint or plate in the roadway as an obstacle, and the system may apply the service brake automatically. If the PCS applies unexpected braking force during normal vehicle operation when no impending collision object is present, it could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will disable the Pre-Collision System (PCS) as an interim measure, and when parts become available, will replace the PCS components with improved parts. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA AVALON 2013, 2014, 2015 LEXUS ES 350 2013, 2014, 2013, 2014, 2015 TRITON CPTL: Faces "Pebble" Suit in California District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Pebble Paving Company, a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Triton Cptl, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02341-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., October 16, 2015) arises from alleged unsolicited telephone sales. Based in San Diego, California, Triton Cptl, Inc., provides commercial equipment financing and working capital options for small and medium sized businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY, LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 836-4200 Facsimile: (510) 836-4205 E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Broadbent" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson Broadbent, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc., Audi of America, Inc. and Audi AG and Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and Porsche AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-01493-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., November 10, 2015), seeks injunctive relief and to recover damages caused by alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, common law of fraud and unjust enrichment and the statutory laws of California and Virginia. The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger vehicles made by the car companies -- called a defeat device -- that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to emission standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing under German law with its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany and is the parent company of Audi AG. It manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand. Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt, Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi brand. Porsche AG is an automotive company under the Volkswagen Group organized and existing under German law, with its principal place of business in Stuttgart, Germany. It manufactures luxury sports cars under the Porsche brand. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon, Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their operations in the United States include research and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing. Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi Vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Porsche AG that sells Porsche vehicles in the United States and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq. Harvey B. Cohen, Esq. DMUROGINSBERG, P.C. 1101 King Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, VA 23314 Tel: (703) 684-4333 Fax: (703) 548-3181 Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com hcohen@dimuro.com - and - Allan Steyer, Esq. D. Scott Macrae, Esq. Jill M. Manning, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 421-3400 Fax: (415) 421-2234 Email: astever@steverlaw.com smacrae@steverlaw.com imanning@steverlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Cornell" Suit to District of Vermont --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Cornell, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 340-9-15 Bncv, was removed from the Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00222-gwc to the proceeding. VWGoA is incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. The Company distributed, sold, leased and warranted the "Subject Vehicles" under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names. The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class of all present and former owners or lessees in Vermont of Volkswagen and Audi "2.0 Liter Vehicles" and "3.0 Liter Vehicles." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Bernal, Esq. WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON & CAMPBELL & BERNAL, P.C. 4900 Main Street P.O. Box 2748 Telephone: (802) 362-2560 Facsimile: (802) 362-7109 E-mail: pjb@wittenetal.com The Defendant is represented by: David A. Barry, Esq. Andrew R. Levin, Esq. SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN,P.C. 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114-4 73 7 Telephone: (617) 227-3030 Facsimile: (617) 523-4001 E-mail: barry@srbc.com levin@srbc.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Glowacki" Suit to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Glowacki, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CP-10-5245, was removed from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 04257-RMG to the proceeding. The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class of all present and former owners or lessees in South Carolina of Volkswagen and Audi vehicles with 2.0 liter "clean diesel" engines. The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs would not have purchased or leased their vehicles but for the alleged misrepresentations of VWGoA concerning "clean diesel" technology and emissions and performance characteristics. VWGoA is incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. The Company distributed, sold, leased and warranted the "Subject Vehicles" under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Badge Humphries, Esq. LEWIS BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, LLP 2113 Middle Street, South Carolina 29482 PO Box 768 Sullivan's Island, SC 29482 Telephone: (843) 883-7444 Facsimile: (843) 883-7462 E-mail: bh@lbglegal.com - and - Arthur Camden Lewis, Esq. LEWIS BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, LLP 1513 Hampton Street PO Box 11208 (29211) Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 771-8000 Facsimile: (803) 733-3534 E-mail: acl@lbglegal.com - and - Scott P. Shaw, Esq. CALL & JENSEN 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Facsimile: (949) 717-3100 E-mail: sshaw@calljensen.com - and - Frederick J. Jekel, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. JEKEL DOOLITTLE PO Box 2579 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 654-7700 Facsimile: (843) 567-1129 E-mail: fritz@j-dlaw.com paul@j-dlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Esq. Charles J. Baker, III, Esq. Dana Lang, Esq. WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP Five Exchange Street PO Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402-0999 Telephone: (843) 722-3400 Facsimile: (843) 723-7398 E-mail: hsmythe@wcsr.com cbaker@wcsr.com dlang@wcsr.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "De Britz" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anela Kelani De Britz, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case 2:15-cv-08815-DMG-E (C.D. Cal., November 12, 2015), seeks to obtain damages, both actual and punitive, restitution and to enjoin Volkswagen from continuing to deceive consumers pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in the 2.0L Turbocharged Direct Injection diesel engine vehicles made by the car companies -- called a defeat device -- that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to emission standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon, Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their operations in the United States include research and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing. Volkswagen of America, Inc. is a corporation which is incorporated in the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing under German law with its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany and is the parent company of Audi AG. It manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE Suite 1500, 550 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Tel: (818) 547-5000 Fax: (818) 547-5329 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com - and - Thomas W. Falvey, Esq. Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY Suite 1500, 550 North Brand Boulevard Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 547-5200 Fax: (818) 500-9307 E-mail: mike.@falveylaw.com thomaswfalvey@gmail.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hoekstra" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Hoekstra, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No: 1:15-cv-10274 Document#1 (N.D. Ill., November 12, 2015), seek redress for fraud and deception pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act and in violation of the Mangson-Moss Warranty Act as a result of selling allegedly defective vehicles. The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in the 2013 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan Turbocharged Direct Injection diesel engine vehicle made by the car companies -- called a defeat device -- that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to emission standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency and as enforced by the Clean Air Act and the Code of Federal Regulations. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon, Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their operations in the United States include research and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing. Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing under German law with its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany and manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Smith, Esq. Brian LaCien, Esq. Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq. POWER ROGERS & SMITH P.C. 70 W Madison Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 236-9381 Fax: (312) 236-0920 Email: tsmith@prslaw.com blacien@prslaw.com cdaley@prslaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Labbate" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating --------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Labbate, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc., Audi of America, Inc. and Audi AG North America, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-00309 (E.D. Tenn., November 10, 2015), seeks to recover economic damages in the diminution of their vehicles with Type EA 189 diesel engines and the diminution of vehicle resale value caused by alleged violations of Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger vehicles made by the car companies -- called a defeat device -- that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to emission standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft is an automotive company organized and existing under German law with its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany and manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon, Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their operations in the United States include research and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing. Volkswagen of America, Inc., is a corporation which is incorporated in the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia, and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt, Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi brand. Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi Vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. James G. Stranch, Esq. Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC J. Gerard Stranch, IV 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com WESTERN UNION: Shareholder Action in Colo. in Preliminary Stage --------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a shareholder action filed in Colorado is in a preliminary stage. On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against The Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants. On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant another former executive officer of the Company. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the competitive advantage the Company derived from its compliance program; (2) the Company's ability to increase market share, make limited price adjustments and withstand competitive pressures; (3) the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico; and (4) the Company's progress in implementing an anti-money laundering program for the Southwest Border Area. On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who, on April 14, 2015, issued a report and recommendation, which recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that the consolidated amended complaint be dismissed in full. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the report and recommendation. On September 29, 2015, the Court (a) overruled in part and sustained in part plaintiffs' objections to the report and recommendation; (b) adopted in part the recommendation; (c) granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint; and (d) dismissed the claims against one of the individual defendants and denied the motion as to the remaining defendants. In particular, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to certain statements made by the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive officer during an investor conference call on July 24, 2012, related to category (3) above concerning the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico. As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and the remaining named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. WESTERN UNION: Settlement in Douglas Class Action Awaits Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement agreement reached in the Jason Douglas class action is subject to the Court's approval. On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and is subject to the Court's approval. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote. WESTERN UNION: Speedpay Fails in Bid to Dismiss Florida Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has entered an order denying Speedpay Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action and Speedpay has filed an answer to the amended complaint. On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the District Court against Speedpay, a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended complaint. As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholders File Class Actions Over Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that stockholders of the Company have filed class actions related to the merger into the Energy Transfer family of companies. "Purported stockholders of us have filed various putative class actions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware," the Company said. Some cases name as defendants all of the individual members of our Board of Directors, Energy Transfer, and us, among others. One other case only names as defendants all of the individual members of our Board of Directors and Energy Transfer, among others. "The actions allege, among other things, that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger into the Energy Transfer family of companies, claiming it to be the product of a flawed process that undervalues us and deprives the stockholders of the ability to participate in our long-term prospects. The actions further allege that we and/or Energy Transfer aided and abetted the Directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The actions seek to enjoin the merger or, in the alternative, to rescind the merger. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time." WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholder Class Suit Filed Over WPZ Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported stockholder of the Company filed in July 2015 a putative class and derivative action on behalf of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company said, "The action names as defendants certain members of our Board of Directors (Individual Defendants), as well as WPZ, and names us as a nominal defendant. Among other things, the action seeks to enjoin the Acquisition of WPZ Public Units and seeks monetary damages, including the repayment of the termination fee that became payable by us due to the termination of the merger agreement for the Acquisition of WPZ Public Units. The action alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to us and our stockholders by failing to adequately evaluate an unsolicited proposal to acquire us in an all-equity transaction and by putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of us and our stockholders in connection with that unsolicited proposal. The action further alleges that WPZ aided and abetted the alleged breaches. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time." WORLD WRESTLING: Defending Lawsuits Related to Brain Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is defending various lawsuits related to traumatic brain injuries. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers. On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015. On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum- selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint. Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths. WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum- selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts. Lastly, on June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously. WORLD WRESTLING: Filed Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action alleging violations of federal securities laws. On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic television license. The complaint seeks certain unspecified damages. A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios. Both lawsuits are purported securities class actions subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). On September 23-24, 2014, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant to the PSLRA. Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as lead plaintiff and consolidating the two actions. On January 5, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously. WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Ch. ------------------------------------------------------------- Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported stockholder of Williams filed in July 2015, a putative class and derivative action on behalf of Williams in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action names as defendants certain members of Williams' Board of Directors (Individual Defendants), as well as us, and names Williams as a nominal defendant. Among other things, the action seeks to enjoin the Public Unit Exchange and seeks monetary damages, including the repayment of the termination fee that became payable by Williams due to the termination of the merger agreement for the Public Unit Exchange. The action alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Williams and its stockholders by failing to adequately evaluate an unsolicited proposal to acquire Williams in an all-equity transaction and by putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of Williams and its stockholders in connection with that unsolicited proposal. "The action further alleges that we aided and abetted the alleged breaches," the Company said. "We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time." ********* 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 * * *