/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 2, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 23 Headlines 6D GLOBAL: To Defend Against "Castillo" Stockholder Class Action 24 HOUR: NLRB Appeal on Class-Action Waiver Ruling Stayed AARON'S INC: Initial Response Filed in "Foster" Suit ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: "Schmidt" Appeals Dismissal of Class Action ACXIOM CORP: Paid $3.6MM Share of Class Action Settlement ADCARE HEALTH: Defendant in Cleveland v. APH&R Nursing Home Case ALFOCCINO INC: Avio's Junk Fax Suit Wins Class Certification ALPHABET HOLDING: 3 Class Suits over Herbal Pills Not Part of MDL ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Diet Pills Case Awaits Final OK ALPHABET HOLDING: Oral Arguments Held in Class Action Appeal APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Split in Affirming Dismissal of "Tomek" Case AQUA LUNG AMERICA: Dismissal Bids in "Huntzinger" Case Denied AT&T INC: Defending Class Suits over DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket AUDIOEYE INC: Has Yet to Respond to Shareholder Suits in Arizona AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D Ala. to MDL 2669 AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D. Tex. to MDL 2669 AVID LIFE MEDIA: "J. Doe 1" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669 AVID LIFE MEDIA: "John Doe" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669 AXA EQUITABLE: Jan. Trial in "Sivolella" and "Sanford" Cases AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Ross" Case under Appeal AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Class Suit under Appeal AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Zweiman" Case under Appeal AXA EQUITABLE: Wants "Shuster" Class Suit Dismissed AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Wants Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court BBX CAPITAL: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for 2nd Quarter 2016 BECTON DICKINSON: Calif. Suits over CareFusion Deal Dropped BECTON DICKINSON: Wants Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Suit Dismissed BLUE BUFFALO: Reaches $32MM Settlement to Resolve Consumer Suits BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Tamez" Suit Moved to C.D. California C&J ENERGY: Additional Defendants Named in Merger Class Suit CALIFORNIA: "Von Staich" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis CANADA: Aboriginal Abuse Case Might End Soon, Atty Says CANNAVEST CORP: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Schuck" CBC PIPELINE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CCC INFO SERVICES: "Sisavath" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Naylor Farms Royalty Case CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Denies Allegations in "Dodson" Royalty Complaint CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Has Moved to Dismiss "Donelson" Royalty Case CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Briscoe Firm Files Securities Class Suit CIGNA CORP: "Amara" Plaintiffs Respond to Plan Benefits Formula CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Franco" Still Pending CITIGROUP INC: "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Goes from S.D.N.Y to M.D. Fla. CITIZENS FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Still Pending in Calif. CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend LIBOR Litigation CITY WIDE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims CHUBB CORPORATION: MOU Reached in ACE Merger Class Suits COMMAND SECURITY: Agrees to Settle "Leal" Labor Case for $2-Mil. COMMUNITY BANK: Awaiting Final Approval of Class Suit Accord CONSOLIDATED LLC: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued in Washington for FCRA Violation COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Facing Class Suit on Meal Breaks CR BARD: Faces "Bures" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filters CYTRX CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $4 Million DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Scope of Age Discrimination Suit May Widen DEUTSCHE BANK: To Face British Suit Over High-Speed Trading DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Gov't Sues Over Misleading Job Prospects DIODES INCORPORATED: Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending DLJ MORTGAGE: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set EMC CORPORATION: 11 Class Suits Filed over Dell Inc. Merger ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orlando" Suit Says EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Plaintiff Interim Co-Lead Counsels Named FANDUEL INC: "Ritchie" Suit Goes from State Court to E.D. Ark. FANDUEL INC: Sued in Oregon Over Alleged Online Sports Betting FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Stein" Merger Suit in Marion County FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Ewing" Merger Suit in S.D. Indiana FLINT, MI: Governor, Others Named in 2 Suits Over Water Crisis FLINT, MI: Subpoena Deadline for Snyder Records Passes FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona FRONTLINE ASSET: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection GANNETT CO: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in New Jersey GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate Price-Fixing GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Cheerios Gluten-Fee Label GOPRO INC: Slapped with Class Suit for Misleading Investors GUITAR CENTER: Employees Forced to Relinquish Right to Sue GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Still Defending Suits Related to NextEra Merger HEALTH AND HOSPITAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Moved to C.D. California HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Cato Action Paid by Insurance HESKA CORPORATION: To Defend "Fauley" Junk Fax Class Action HI TECH: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing Campaign HOLLISTER CO: Slapped with $5M Suit Over On-Call Shifts Policies HUMANA INC: Accord Reached in Kentucky Suits; Del. Cases Dropped IDI INC: Florida Court Dismissed "Heim" Shareholder Class Action ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: "Tawil" Suit Transferred to New Jersey INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks Continue in "Makover" Lawsuit INNOVATIVE FOOD: "Aviles" Calif. Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed ISORAY INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Lawsuit JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Collie" Suit Over Invokana(R) Drug JC FODALE: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JETS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action for $324,000 KEEPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER: Inmate May File Amended Complaint LECOM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Benion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LINKEDIN: Judge Asked to Approve $13-Mil. Settlement LOGMEIN INC: Wins Dismissal of Customer Class Suit LOKEY OLDSMOBILE: "Dettloff" Suit Goes to Middle Dist. Fla. LYFT: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California Out of Court MACY'S INC: Faces Class Action Over "Phantom Pricing Scheme" MARRONE BIO: Second Amended Complaint Filed on Jan. 11, 2016 MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hedglin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lemons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Stafford" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Summerville" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Swegan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MCCORMICK & CO: "Linker" Suit Moved from E.D. Mo. to D.C. Wash. MCCORMICK & CO: "Pellitteri" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C. MCCORMICK & CO: "Theis" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to Wash. D.C. MDL 2667: "Moore" Suit Moved to N.D. Indiana NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay NBTY INC: Appeal in "Lary" Junk Fax Class Suit Remains Pending NV ENERGY: Net Metering Program Spurs Class-Action Lawsuit NV ENERGY: New Proposal to Customers May Moot Class Suit OOMA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit for OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Claims by Class Members Fully Resolved PAYMENT DATA: "McFarland" Exec. Compensation Suit Not Yet Served PETROLES THERRIEN: Quebec Court Splits Gas Price Class Action PET VALU: Franchisee Class Action Dismissed by Ontario Court PHOTOMEDEX INC: Still Defending Class Suit v Radiancy Unit PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants "Cantley" Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Insurer Paid Plaintiffs' Legal Fees POPULAR INC: PCB Renews Arbitration Bid in "Valle" Case POPULAR INC: Parties in "Quiles" Case Reached Deal POPULAR INC: Bids to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending POPULAR INC: BPPR Still a Defendant in RadioShack ERISA Case PROTECTIVE LIFE: Del. Court Approved Settlement of Merger Suit RADIANT LOGISTICS: Co-Defendant Bankruptcy Stalls "Barahona" Case RAYONIER INC: Motions to Dismiss Securities Case Pending RCS CAPITAL: Defending Against ARCH Trust Litigation RCS CAPITAL: Feb. 2 Oral Argument Set in "Weston" Securities Suit RCS CAPITAL: Has Until Feb. 11 to File Motions to Dismiss RENASANT CORP: Hearing Held to Approve Accord in Stockholder Case ROCK CREEK: Submits Responsive Documents in Illinois Case ROCKET FUEL: Shareholder Class Action Mulled SABINE OIL: Forest Oil Class Suit Remains Stayed Amid Bankruptcy SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Hearing Held on Suit over Bail System SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Event USA's Motion to Compel Discovery Denied SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Litigation over Bally Acquisition Dismissed SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Action Pending SECRET TO LIFE COACHING: Former Clients File Fraud Class Action SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Defending Suits over Martha Stewart Merger SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Final Judgment & Dismissal Order Entered SHERMAN FINANCIAL: FDCPA/RICO Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action SIENTRA INC: Acknowledges C.D. Calif. "Flynn" Shareholder Suit SIENTRA INC: Two Stockholder Cases Filed in San Mateo Court SOCAL GAS: Two Porter Ranch Businesses File Class Action SOCAL GAS: Regulators Sue Over Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak SPENDSMART NETWORKS: To Defend "Marchelos" Texting Spam Case ST. LAWRENCE REGIONAL: April 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set STATE FARM: Underestimates Water Damage Claims, Calif. Suit Says SUNTRUST BANKS: Oral Argument This Year in Class Action Appeal SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Suit over 401(k) Plan SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Suit Still Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Cases Remanded Following "Tibble" Decision SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Case Remains Stayed TACO BELL: Bid to Decertify Classes in "Sandrika" Case Denied TIMBERTECH LTD: CPG's Partial Motion to Dismiss Denied TORCHMARK CORP: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Proctor" Suit TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: March 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set TRICO BANCSHARES: Stipulated Judgment Has Final Approval TRICO BANCSHARES: Bank Denies Claims in Butte Class Suit TRICO BANCSHARES: Denies Allegations in Sacramento Class Suit UNITED STATES: Tribe Can't Apply Equitable Tolling, Court Rules VANGUARD NATURAL: Suits Filed in Texas State Court Dismissed VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to "Hurwitz" Case Not Yet Set VECTOR GROUP: Ligget Group Involved in 3 Class Suits VECTOR GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Case Pending v. Liggett VECTOR GROUP: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Set for trial Thru Sept. 2016 VIVINT SOLAR: Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Suit Granted VIVINT SOLAR: Class Suits Filed Related to SunEdison Acquisition VIVINT SOLAR: Customer Class Action filed in Kern County, Calif. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Catlett" Suit Goes from Utah to MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Feldman" Suit Transferred to MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gall" Suit Moved from Iowa to MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Scoggins" Suit Goes to MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Smith" Suit Moved from Illinois to MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Stanley" Suit Goes from Colo. to MDL 2672 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Investor Claims in Germany VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: South Korean Car Owners to File Class Suit in US WALT DISNEY: Former Employees File Class Action WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Shanklin Claims WINDSOR, CANADA: Legal Fees in Bingo Suit Reach $1.7-Mil. WINDSOR, CANADA: Foundations Asked to Opt Out of Bingo Class Suit YAHOO! INC: Violates Investment Company Act, Union Suit Claims * Ark. State Justices Respond to Campaign Donation Questions * Fifth Circuit to Tackle Class Action Waiver Issue in 2016 * Fla. Charities to Get Funding From Unclaimed Class-Action Funds * Securities Class Action Filings Up 11% to 189 in 2015 ********* 6D GLOBAL: To Defend Against "Castillo" Stockholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6D Global Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company intends to defend against the case, Castillo v. 6D Global Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-8061 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.). On October 13, 2015, an individual named Sixto Castillo IV filed a putative class action against the Company, its officers and directors, and certain third-parties on behalf of stockholders of the Company and seeks damages arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions by the Company concerning defendant Benjamin Wey, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), respectively) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5). Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had deficient internal controls, (2) the Company engaged in improper and undisclosed material related party transactions, (3) the Company and other defendants purportedly sought to manipulate the Company's stock price, and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The Company vigorously disputes the allegations made in the complaint and intends to aggressively defend itself in the lawsuit. The extent of the Company's potential liability in this matter has not yet been determined. 24 HOUR: NLRB Appeal on Class-Action Waiver Ruling Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Penton, Vin Gurrieri, Y. Peter Kang and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, report that the Fifth Circuit on Jan. 25 agreed to pause 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc.'s appeal of a National Labor Relations Board decision that the class-action waivers in the company's arbitration agreements were unlawful, pending the resolution of a similar case. U.S. Circuit Judge W. Eugene Davis signed off on a one-paragraph order granting the NLRB's unopposed request for the case to be stayed. The agency wants to see the outcome of a petition for an en banc rehearing of the Fifth Circuit's October rejection of the board's arguments that Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act. The gym chain filed a petition on Jan. 5 asking the Fifth Circuit to take another look at the NLRB's Dec. 24 decision, which found that the 24 Hour Fitness arbitration policy violated the labor act because it requires workers to waive their right to participate in class or collective actions involving employment-related claims. The three-member NLRB panel's decision in December affirmed a 2012 ruling by NLRB Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt, who held that both the class action ban and a nondisclosure restriction in the fitness chain's arbitration policy unlawfully limited employees from exercising their rights under federal labor law. "An opt-out procedure still imposes an unlawful mandatory condition of employment that falls squarely within the rule of D.R. Horton and affirmed in Murphy Oil," the NLRB panel wrote in December. In the Murphy Oil case, the Fifth Circuit in October mostly reversed an NLRB ruling that found Murphy Oil arbitration agreements barring workers from pursuing class actions unlawful, saying it is bound by its December 2013 decision that rejected the labor board's ruling in a similar case, involving homebuilder D.R. Horton Inc. In that case, the appellate court rejected the NLRB's ruling that arbitration agreements barring employees from pursuing class or collective claims violate federal labor law. "Murphy Oil committed no unfair labor practice by requiring employees to relinquish their right to pursue class or collective claims in all forums by signing the arbitration agreements at issue here," the Fifth Circuit wrote in a 13-page published opinion. "Reading the Murphy Oil contract as a whole, it would be unreasonable for an employee to construe the revised arbitration agreement as prohibiting the filing of board charges when the agreement says the opposite." But the Fifth Circuit stopped short of granting Murphy Oil's request for the NLRB to be held in contempt for not following the appeals court's ruling in the D.R. Horton case, saying the labor board may not know which circuit court's law will be applied in various appeals of the NLRB's rulings. "We do not celebrate the board's failure to follow our D.R. Horton reasoning, but neither do we condemn its nonacquiescence," it said. Rex S. Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- an attorney representing 24 Hour Fitness, declined to comment on Jan. 26. NLRB officials could not be reached on Jan. 26 for comment. 24 Hour Fitness is represented by Rex S. Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. The NLRB is represented by Linda Dreeben, Joseph F. Frankl and Carmen Leon of the agency. The case is 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, case number 16-60005, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. AARON'S INC: Initial Response Filed in "Foster" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Foster v. Aaron's, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violates the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: "Schmidt" Appeals Dismissal of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abeona Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Alan Schmidt has filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of his class action lawsuit. Alan Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation ("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June 2012. The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including Abeona, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by us in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently a director of Abeona, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both of whom are our directors (the "Abeona Defendants"). With respect to the Abeona Defendants, the complaint alleged direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets, aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the Abeona Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of any distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") which asserted substantially the same allegations with respect to the Abeona Defendants. On February 4, 2013, the Abeona Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them. On August 12, 2013 the court granted the Abeona Defendants' motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the Abeona Defendants on all claims. On August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the District Court. On September 17, 2013, Schmidt filed his appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third Circuit"). On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied Schmidt's motion for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his appeal to include the District Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On May 22, 2014, the Abeona Defendants filed their Oppositions to Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his Reply Brief on that date. The Third Circuit held oral argument on September 12, 2014. On October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision holding, among other things, that the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was time-barred on statute of limitations grounds was premature. The Third Circuit did not rule upon any of the other grounds for dismissal advanced in the District Court and on appeal. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be held on February 3, 2015. On January 23, 2015, the Abeona Defendants filed their Supplemental Brief. At the February 3, 2015 hearing, Schmidt sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint for a second time. Schmidt filed his Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations with respect to the Abeona Defendants, but eliminates all causes of action against the Abeona Defendants except for aiding and abetting the Genaera directors' and officers' purported breaches of fiduciary duties, a claim for "punitive damages" and a claim for rescission of a settlement agreement between the Trust and the Abeona Defendants. On March 20, 2015, the Abeona Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 10, 2015, the District Court granted the Abeona Defendant's motion and dismissed the action in its entirety. On November 11, 2015, Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the District Court. "We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously," the Company said. ACXIOM CORP: Paid $3.6MM Share of Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Acxiom Corporation has paid $3.6 million, which represents its share of the settlement amount in a class action lawsuit, Acxiom said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. A putative class action was pending against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems (which was sold to another company in fiscal 2012), and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., a Colorado corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Acxiom (now known as Acxiom Identity Solutions, LLC), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This action sought to certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that contained information not obtained directly from a governmental entity and who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward, disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007 forward, were the subject of an Acxiom report for which no permissible purpose existed. The complaint alleged various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Company had previously accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable loss associated with the matter. In April 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the matter. On August 7, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. Acxiom has paid $3.6 million, which represents its share of the settlement amount. The Company believes the chances of additional loss are remote. ADCARE HEALTH: Defendant in Cleveland v. APH&R Nursing Home Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- AdCare Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims in the case, Amy Cleveland et. al. v APH&R Nursing, LLC et. al. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned, Angela Burnett as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Amy Cleveland, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Amy Cleveland; Myrtle Briley as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Sam Briley, deceased; Lavern Coleman as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Freddie Fowlkes Thomas, deceased; Barbara Giffen as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Willie Thomas, deceased; Vivian Swopes as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Ellen Shepherd, deceased; Marilyn Cabaniss as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Mary May Blood, deceased vs. APH&R Nursing, LLC d/b/a Cumberland Health and Rehabilitation Center and/or Abington Place Health and Rehab Center; Benton Nursing, LLC d/b/a Bentonville Manor Nursing Home; Homestead Nursing, LLC d/b/a Homestead Manor Nursing Home; Little Rock HC&R Nursing, LLC d/b/a West Markham Sub Acute and Rehabilitation Center; Mountain View Nursing, LLC d/b/a Stone County Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; Northridge HC&R Nursing, LLC d/b/a Northridge Healthcare and Rehabilitation; Park Heritage Nursing, LLC d/b/a Heritage Park Nursing Center; Valley River Nursing, LLC d/b/a River Valley Health and Rehabilitation Center; Woodland Hills HC Nursing, LLC d/b/a Woodland Hills Healthcare and Rehabilitation; APH&R Property Holdings, LLC; Benton Property Holdings, LLC; Homestead Property Holdings, LLC; Little Rock HC&R Property Holdings, LLC; Mt. V Property Holdings, LLC; Northridge HC&R Property Holdings, LLC; Park Heritage Property Holdings, LLC; Valley River Property Holdings, LLC; Woodland Hills HC Property Holdings, LLC; AdCare Administrative Services, LLC; AdCare Consulting, LLC; AdCare Operations, LLC; AdCare Health Systems, Inc.; Boyd P. Gentry; Christopher Brogdon; David A. Tenwick; Melinda Calaway; John Beaudrie; Cyndie L. Lyon; Debbie K. George-Fort; Kitty Gantner; Gaylon Gammill; Bennett; Brenda Barrientos; Deanna Shackleford; Rose Gean; Sherry Duncan; Tracey Tidwell; Zahid Abbasi; Jill Madden; Becky Jo Miller; Deborah Tyler; Matthew Manning; Rickey Griffin; Mincie Thomas; Deborah Hicks; Mary D. Huntsman-Hartfield; Dana Thompson Baker; Christine Wilson; Glenn Clark; Kimberly Franklin-Bruce; Deborah Thornton; Denene Hurst; Christopher Johnson; Pamela Murphy; Matthew Stevens; Tammy Romero; Brenda Huntsinger; Tammy Watkins; Gale Woodell; Nadine Huddleston; Michael Harrison; Chris Titsworth; Peggy McLelland; and Patricia Lamb, Case No. 60CV-14-3741, filed on March 4, 2015 with the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, 16th Division, 6th Circuit (the "Complaint"). The Complaint asserts claims against a purported class which consists of the residents at: (i) Stone County Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; (ii) Bentonville Manor Nursing Home; (iii) Heritage Park Nursing Center; (iv) Homestead Manor Nursing Home; (v) River Valley Health and Rehabilitation Center; (vi) Northridge Healthcare and Rehabilitation; (vii) Woodland Hills Healthcare and Rehabilitation; (viii) West Markham Sub Acute and Rehabilitation Center; and (ix) Cumberland Health and Rehabilitation Center, all of which were managed by subsidiaries or affiliates of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the nine facilities were understaffed during the class period which resulted in breaches or violation of the nursing home admission agreements, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Long Term Care Facilities Residents' Act. The Complaint also includes individual negligence claims on behalf of former deceased resident Amy Cleveland. The commencement date of the class period begins at different times during 2011 and 2012 for each facility and continues through a date to be determined by the court. The Complaint seeks certification of a class of residents consisting of all residents of the facilities during the class period, judgment against all defendants for actual, compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees. With respect to the allegations concerning Amy Cleveland, the Complaint seeks damages for injuries, general and special damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, attorney fees and punitive damages. ALFOCCINO INC: Avio's Junk Fax Suit Wins Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Gerald E. Rosen granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointed class counsel in the case captioned, AVIO, INC., a Michigan corporation individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ALFOCCINO, INC., D. TALIERCIO INVESTMENTS, INC., and FARSHID (TONY) SHUSHTARI, Defendants, No.: 10-CV-10221, (E.D. Mich.) This is one of dozens of "junk fax" cases arising out of the use of the services of Business-to-Business Solutions (B2B), a company that worked with businesses to send advertisements via facsimile. Plaintiff's putative class action generally asserts that B2B faxed over ten thousand advertisements on Defendants' behalf in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA). The Court previously granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring this suit and, in the alternative, that the TCPA does not provide for direct liability where a third party broadcasted the fax and that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of production with regard to Defendants' indirect liability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that despite its lack of personal knowledge of the faxes at issue, Plaintiff has Article III standing to bring this case, and that the TCPA does provide for direct liability against a defendant whose goods or services are advertised in the fax at issue, even if that party did not broadcast the fax. In his Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Dv1Izsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosen granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointed class counsel. The Court certified the following class: "All persons sent one or more faxes on November 13, 2006, December 4, 2006, or December 5, 2006 from Alfoccino Restaurant with a coupon offering 15% OFF Your Total Catering or Banquet Food Bill Up to $100 and listing the website www.alfoccino.com." The Court appointed Brian J. Wanca of Anderson & Wanca and Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. as Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Moreover, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's counsel file a proposed class notification form which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), together with a statement describing the method by which the notice will be provided to class members and a list of persons to whom the notice will be sent. George K. Lang, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and Brian J. Wanca, Esq. -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca; and Jonathan Piper, Esq. -- jon@bockhatchllc.com -- Phillip A. Bock, Esq. -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- and Tod A. Lewis, Esq. -- tod@bockhatchllc.com -- of Bock & Hatch LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Avio, Inc. Jason R. Mathers, Esq. -- jmathers@harveykruse.com -- and John R. Prew, Esq. -- jprew@harveykruse.com -- of Harvey Kruse serve as counsel for Defendant Alfoccino, Inc. ALPHABET HOLDING: 3 Class Suits over Herbal Pills Not Part of MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that three class action lawsuits over herbal dietary supplements against one of the Company's customers to which the Company may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred and consolidated with the multi-district litigation case, and are at the initial stages of litigation. In February 2015, the State of New York Office of the Attorney General (the "NY AG") began an investigation concerning the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the validity of their representations and advertising in connection with the sale of herbal supplements. On September 9, 2015, the Attorney General sent letters to 14 separate companies, including NBTY, concerning an additional herbal product. NBTY has fully cooperated with the NY AG; however until these investigations are concluded, no final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015, numerous putative class actions were filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States District Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division (the "MDL Case"). "Three class actions against one of our customers to which we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred and consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages of litigation," the Company said. "At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation and related litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY." Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2010. Holdings is the direct parent of NBTY, Inc. Holdings is a vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the United States, with operations worldwide. ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Diet Pills Case Awaits Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that a preliminary conference was held on July 22, 2015, on the settlement reached in class action lawsuits over glucosamine-based dietary supplements. Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states' consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have certain indemnification obligations. In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2014. In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12 million reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to $6.1 million. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision. In April 2015, NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certain plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providing for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs estimated to be in the amount of $9 million, which resulted in an additional charge of $4.3 million in the second quarter results for fiscal 2015. On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held before the court on July 22, 2015. Until the cases are resolved, no final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY. Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2010. Holdings is the direct parent of NBTY, Inc. Holdings is a vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the United States, with operations worldwide. ALPHABET HOLDING: Oral Arguments Held in Class Action Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that a court was slated to hear oral arguments December 10, 2015, related to a plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of its class action lawsuit. NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class- action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross- claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY, and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014. On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action and that appeal is pending. The court scheduled oral arguments for December 10, 2015. Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2010. Holdings is the direct parent of NBTY, Inc. Holdings is a vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the United States, with operations worldwide. APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Split in Affirming Dismissal of "Tomek" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should have revived a man's claims that Apple misled him about how well its MacBook Pros could perform processor-intensive tasks like gaming, a dissenting judge in San Francisco said. Alex Tomek brought the underlying lawsuit nearly five years ago in Sacramento, Calif., complaining that Apple misrepresented MacBook Pros on the market at the time as suitable for tasks that drain computer processors. When Tomek engaged in activities like high-performance gaming, pro-video editing and graphic-intensive applications, however, his MacBook Pro dramatically slowed down or shut off. Tomek claimed that Apple knew power-intensive applications would have these effects because its 85-watt power adapter was insufficient to power, and because it received a lot of complaints about the MacBook's battery life. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Tomek's case in a 2-1 unpublished opinion, finding Jan. 27 that he failed to show that Apple issued misleading advertisements intentionally. "Tomek's references to customer complaints do not cure this defect because those complaints were posted after Tomek purchased his MacBook Pro," the unsigned ruling states. "Further, the later evidence tendered to show that Apple released a patch solving the issue does not show knowledge of the defect at the time of sale." Tomek tried three times to amend his claims, the Ninth Circuit said it was also not unfair to block him from trying a fourth time. Judge Sandra Ikuta dissented from her colleagues on the panel, Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Sidney Thomas, noting that "California courts have been extremely generous to plaintiffs" like Tomek bringing fraud claims brought under the Golden State's Unfair Competition Law. "Unlike a plaintiff bringing a claim of common-law fraud, a party bringing a UCL fraud claim need not allege that the defendant's actions were 'actually false, known to be false by the perpetrator and reasonably relied upon by a victim who incurs damages,'" Ikuta wrote. Finding that Tomek sufficiently accused Apple of engaging in a business practice "that is likely to deceive members of the public,'" Ikuta said he succeeded in bringing a UCL fraud claim. "Apple calls these representations mere puffery and points to disclaimers in its advertising," Ikuta wrote. "But . . . even puffery is actionable under the Unfair Competition Law fraudulent prong so long as it could deceive a reasonable consumer." Tomek initially sought to represent a class of consumers who bought 2011 MacBook Pro with 15-inch and 17-inch screens. The Ninth Circuit heard the appeal on Nov. 18. The case captioned, ALEX TOMEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APPLE INC., Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-16696 (9th Cir.) AQUA LUNG AMERICA: Dismissal Bids in "Huntzinger" Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Q. Hayes denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the class action complaint as well as the Plaintiff's motion to strike in the captioned case RALPH A. HUNTZINGER on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15cv1146 WQH (KSC), (S.D. Cal.) Plaintiff contends that Aqua Lung America, Inc. committed unlawful business practices by advertising and distributing Suunto scuba diving computers without disclosing material facts to consumers that the computers are defective. Plaintiff alleges that the Dive Computers can malfunction, causing injury or death to consumers. Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated: (1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., (2) violation of the Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq., and (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting that: (1) Plaintiff has not alleged an injury sufficient to establish standing, (2) Plaintiff's claim should be limited to the model of dive computer he purchased, (3) a national class should not be certified because differences in state law overwhelm the common issues of the class, (4) privity does not exist between Plaintiff and Defendant because Plaintiff purchased his computer from a third party retailer, (6) the complaint does not plead fraud with particularity, and (7) the statute of limitations has passed for claims regarding some dive computers. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a motion to strike Defendant's evidentiary submission submitted in support of its motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's Order dated December 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/LmfLa6from Leagle.com. Douglas A. Hofmann, Esq. -- dhofmann@williamskastner.com -- and John A. Knox, Esq. -- jknox@williamskastner.com -- of Williams Kastner Gibbs PLLC; Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and William M Berman, Esq. -- wberman@bermanlawyers.com -- of Berman and Riedel serve as counsel for Plaintiff Ralph A. Huntzinger John S. Worden, Esq. -- jworden@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Aqua Lung America, Inc. AT&T INC: Defending Class Suits over DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket ---------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that more than a dozen putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and the Southern District of New York against DIRECTV and the National Football League (NFL) alleging that the NFL and DIRECTV violated federal antitrust law in connection with the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Among other things, the complaints allege that plaintiffs have been overcharged for the televised presentation of out-of-market NFL games due to DIRECTV's exclusive agreement with the NFL to broadcast out-of-market games through the Sunday Ticket package. The complaints seek unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees along with injunctive relief. The first complaint, Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc., et al., was served in June 2015. "We vigorously dispute these allegations," the Company said. AUDIOEYE INC: Has Yet to Respond to Shareholder Suits in Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has not yet responded to two shareholder class action lawsuits in Arizona. "In April 2015, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against us and our former officers Nathaniel Bradley and Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allege various causes of action against the defendants arising from our announcement that our previously issued financial results for the first three quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year of 2014 could no longer be relied upon. The complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees." "The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel, and we have not yet responded to the complaints. We believe that the lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense. Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, our management currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to these matters," the Company said. AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D Ala. to MDL 2669 ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media Inc. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01464, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01877- jar to the proceeding. Avid Life Media 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 Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P Mauro, Esq. John Parker Yates, Esq. Thomas E Baddley Jr., Esq. BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC 850 Shades Creek Parkway Ste 310 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 939 0090 Facsimile: (205) 939 0064 E-mail: jpmauro@baddleymauro.com jpy@baddleymauro.com tbaddley@baddleymauro.com The Defendants are represented by: James C Barton Jr, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP One Federal Place 1819 5th Avenue North, Suite 1000 BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 297 2200 Facsimile: (205) 297 2201 E-mail: jim.barton@butlersnow.com AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Goes from N.D. Tex. to MDL 2669 ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02750, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-Cv-01876-JAR to the proceeding. Avid Life Media 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 Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Kirtley III, Esq. FERRER AND POIROT 2603 Oak Lawn, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75219-9109 Telephone: (214) 521 4412 Facsimile: (866) 513 0115 E-mail: jkirtley@lawyerworks.com - and - William Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq. HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326 3336 Facsimile: (205) 326 3332 AVID LIFE MEDIA: "J. Doe 1" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled J. Doe 1 et al. v. Avid Life Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01347, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01879-JAR to the proceeding. Avid Life Media 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 J. Doe 1 case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Byron T Ball, Esq. THE BALL LAW FIRM LLP 644 S Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 446 6148 Facsimile: (310) 441 5386 E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com - and - William B Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235 1560 Facsimile: (405) 239 2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David William Nelson, Esq. Kevin D Rising, Esq. BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904 Telephone: (310) 284 3880 Facsimile: (310) 284 3894 E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com kevin.rising@btlaw.com AVID LIFE MEDIA: "John Doe" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to MDL 2669 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled John Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06405, was transferred from The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01878-JAR to the Proceeding. Avid Life Media 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 John Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ari Cherniak, Esq. Julian Ari Hammond, Esq. HAMMONDLAW PC 1829 Reisterstown Road Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601 6766 Facsimile: (310) 295 2385 E-mail: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com hammond.julian@gmail.com The Defendants are represented By: David William Nelson, Esq. BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904 Telephone: (310) 284 3880 Facsimile: (310) 284 3894 E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com AXA EQUITABLE: Jan. Trial in "Sivolella" and "Sanford" Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a trial was scheduled to commence in January 2016 in the Sivolella and Sanford class action cases. A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC") ("Sivolella Litigation"). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds. The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for investment management services. In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class action in addition to a derivative action. In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable. In December 2011, AXA Equitable and FMG LLC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act. In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the defendants' motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim. In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et al. v. FMG LLC ("Sanford Litigation"). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are named in the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC for investment management services. In light of the similarities of the allegations in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits. In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC in its capacity as administrator of EQ Advisors Trust. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission of the contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid, interest, costs and fees. In January 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as well as various motions to strike certain of the Plaintiffs' experts in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations. Also in January 2015, two Plaintiffs in the Sanford Litigation filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to the EQ/Core Bond Index Portfolio as well as motions in limine to bar admission of certain documents and preclude the testimony of one of defendants' experts. In August 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motions in limine and also denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The trial had been scheduled for January 2016. AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Ross" Case under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the "Ross" class action lawsuit have taken an appeal from the order dismissing their case and denying their request for class certification. In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable (the "Policies"). The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its "financial condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period. In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014. In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs for the current named plaintiff, Mr. Yale, who had determined that he could not serve as the named plaintiff and class representative in the case. The action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. In March 2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss on substantive grounds, whereupon the court permitted plaintiffs to file an amended pleading, which they did in March 2015. In April 2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In April 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a result of that decision, the Court also denied plaintiffs motion for class certification as moot. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a briefing schedule has been set by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Class Suit under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Calvin W. Yarbrough has taken an appeal from the dismissal of his class action lawsuit. In April 2015, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the "Ross" litigation filed a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders with "Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders," entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief (return of all premium paid by class members) as the first action on behalf of life insurance policyholders. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. AXA EQUITABLE: Dismissal of "Zweiman" Case under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Jessica Zweiman has filed an appeal from the dismissal of her class action lawsuit. A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that volatility management techniques -- which the complaint refers to as the "ATM Strategy" -- were implemented in certain variable investment options offered to plaintiff's mother under her variable annuity contract and that use of volatility management in those options "breached the terms of the variable deferred annuities held by plaintiff and the Class." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New York state court. In September 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. In September 2015, the New York federal district court granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the Complaint. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. AXA EQUITABLE: Wants "Shuster" Class Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by Arlene Shuster, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. In November 2014, one of the plaintiff's law firms in the Zweiman litigation filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County ("New Jersey state court"). This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof" and asserts a claim for breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman. In December 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In January 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New Jersey state court. In July 2015, the New Jersey federal district court remanded the action to New Jersey state court. In September 2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the compliant. AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Wants Suit Remanded to Conn. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard T. O'Donnell is seeking to remand his class action lawsuit against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company to a state court in Connecticut state where the case was originally filed, AXA said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. In August 2015, one of the plaintiff's law firms in the Zweiman litigation filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven ("Connecticut state court"). This lawsuit purports to cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman. In September 2015, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and a motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to Connecticut state court. BBX CAPITAL: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for 2nd Quarter 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------------ BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the final approval hearing of the settlement in the case, New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, is scheduled for the second quarter of 2016. On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of BBX Capital Asset Management, LLC ("CAM"), among others as defendants. The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%." Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main antitrust claim. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014. While BBX Capital believed the claims to be without merit, BBX Capital reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to court approval. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court and the final approval hearing is currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2016. BECTON DICKINSON: Calif. Suits over CareFusion Deal Dropped ----------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the fiscal year period ended September 30, 2015, that the Superior Court of California granted plaintiffs' request for voluntary dismissal of the class action lawsits related to the Company's merger with CareFusion. On October 5, 2014, CareFusion and the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of CareFusion by the Company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, a subsidiary of the Company ("the merger subsidiary") merged with and into CareFusion on March 17, 2015, with CareFusion surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Several putative class action lawsuits have been filed against CareFusion, its directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders. The plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion and the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the parties to the actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Actions") entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Actions on the basis of additional disclosures made in a CareFusion Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on January 5, 2015. The settlement terms are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). On December 31, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel notified the Delaware Court of Chancery of the settlement and MOU. The parties to the Delaware Actions entered into a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release and presented the matter to the Delaware Court of Chancery for approval. The Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement on September 17, 2015 and the Delaware Actions are now concluded. On October 27, 2015, the Superior Court of California granted plaintiffs' request for voluntary dismissal of the California actions. BECTON DICKINSON: Wants Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the fiscal year period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action complaint was filed on July 17, 2015, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising, acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. BLUE BUFFALO: Reaches $32MM Settlement to Resolve Consumer Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. (NASDAQ:BUFF) announced Dec. 10, 2015, that its subsidiary Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. has entered into a settlement agreement in the class action lawsuits brought on behalf of consumers and consolidated in the Multi-District Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim, among other things, that certain Blue Buffalo products were not consistent with the "True Blue Promise." Blue Buffalo denies any wrongdoing, and has agreed to this settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. Under the terms of the agreement, Blue Buffalo will pay $32 million into a settlement fund to settle the claims of the plaintiff class. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. The amount that each class member who submits a claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during the class period and certain other conditions. "More than a year ago, we informed our Pet Parents about the misconduct of a former ingredient supplier and a broker. While we will continue to pursue our claims against them, we decided that it is in the best interest of our Pet Parents and our company to resolve the class actions now. All of us at Blue Buffalo continue to work tirelessly to make pet food with the finest natural ingredients for our furry family members," said Bill Bishop, Chairman and Founder of Blue Buffalo. The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to record a pre-tax charge of $32 million ($20 million after tax) which will be recorded as a discrete item in SG&A in the fourth quarter of 2015. The Company intends to pay for the settlement with cash on hand. Any recovery from third parties and insurance related to this settlement would be recorded when realized. Blue Buffalo -- http://www.BlueBuffalo.com/-- based in Wilton, CT, is a natural pet food company, and provides natural foods and treats for dogs and cats under its BLUE Life Protection Formula, BLUE Wilderness, BLUE Basics, BLUE Freedom and BLUE Natural Veterinary Diet lines. Paying tribute to its founding mission, the Company, through the Blue Buffalo Foundation for Cancer Research, is also a leading sponsor of pet cancer awareness and of critical studies of pet cancer, health, treatment and nutrition at top veterinary medical schools across the United States. BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Tamez" Suit Moved to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kiana Tamez v. Buffalo Wild Wings et al., Case No. BC596402, was removed from Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09754-JAK-PJW to the proceeding. Buffalo Wild Wings, a California Corporation, is an American casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico and The Philippines which specializes in chicken wings and sauces. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Stacey E James, Esq. Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 501 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 515 1865 Facsimile: (619) 232 4302 E-mail: sjames@littler.com sfahimi@littler.com C&J ENERGY: Additional Defendants Named in Merger Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ C&J Energy Services Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit related to a business combination between C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and Nabors Industries Ltd. have filed an amended complaint naming additional defendants. On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination of Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production services business (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became a subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the "Merger"). The resulting combined company is led by the former management team of Legacy C&J. Upon the closing of the Merger, shares of common stock of Legacy C&J were converted into common shares of C&J on a 1-for-1 basis and C&J's common shares began trading on the NYSE under the ticker "CJES." C&J is the successor issuer to Legacy C&J following the closing of the Merger and is deemed to succeed to Legacy C&J's reporting history under the Exchange Act. In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors, and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July 30, 2014 (the "Lawsuit"). Plaintiff in the Lawsuit generally alleges that the board of directors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, candor and independence by allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Legacy C&J board directors, or certain of them (i) failed to fully inform themselves of the market value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value and obtain the best price reasonably available for Legacy C&J, (ii) acted in bad faith and for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourage other strategic alternatives and (iv) put their personal interests ahead of the interests of Legacy C&J shareholders. The Lawsuit further alleges that Legacy C&J, Nabors and Red Lion aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of directors. On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the Legacy C&J board of directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy C&J from holding its shareholder meeting until it had complied with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect. Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the Court of Chancery's order, the Legacy C&J board of directors established a special committee, which retained separate legal and financial advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation. On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order. On March 25, 2015, the C&J Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and filed their opening brief in support on September 15, 2015. On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming additional defendants and alleging that the special committee of the Legacy C&J board of directors and its advisors improperly conducted the court-ordered solicitation that the Delaware Supreme Court vacated. The Lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the special committee of the Legacy C&J board of directors, its financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain employees of Legacy C&J. CALIFORNIA: "Von Staich" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman granted Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for judicial notice in the captioned case IVAN VON STAICH, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., Defendants, No.: 2:15-cv-0560 MCE KJN P., (E.D. Cal.) Named as defendants are Governor Brown, Superior Court Judges Robison, Prickett, King and Hanson. Plaintiff was convicted of second degree murder in 1986. Plaintiff's claims all challenge Defendant Brown's 2012 decision reversing the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) 2011 finding that Plaintiff was suitable for parole. Plaintiff's claims can be divided into four categories. First, claims 1-7 and 11 challenge Defendant Brown's reversal of the BPH's finding of parole suitability, which was upheld by Defendant Superior Court judges. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brown mischaracterized a 2010 psychological report. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Brown improperly relied on stricken juvenile records and charges he had been acquitted of as an adult. Second, claims 8-10 allege that Defendants violated state law by refusing to release him based on his maximum confinement date. Third, claim 12 alleges that Defendants selectively enforce parole laws. Fourth, claim 13 alleges that Proposition 89 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. In his request for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that his stricken juvenile convictions and charges he was acquitted of as an adult be stricken from his parole hearing files. Plaintiff also requests that the court order that defendant Brown be prohibited from considering the 2010 psychological report. Plaintiff also requests that the court order defendant Brown to reconsider the BPH decision finding him suitable based on this new record. Plaintiff also requests that the court order defendant Brown not to overrule his maximum confinement date of May 11, 2007. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. In his Order and Findings and Recommendations dated December 11, 2015 available at http://is.gd/mDBV7pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Newman granted Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for judicial notice. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. CANADA: Aboriginal Abuse Case Might End Soon, Atty Says ------------------------------------------------------- James McLeod, writing for The Telegram, reports that lawyers will return to court to continue arguing the Labrador residential schools class-action lawsuit, but lawyer Ches Crosbie, representing survivors, sees a glimmer of hope that the whole thing might end soon. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett refused a request for an interview from The Telegram, but a staffer issued a statement on her behalf. "The Government of Canada believes the abuse of children is tragic and unacceptable and we understand how this litigation can be difficult for those involved," Bennett said in the statement. "We also believe in honouring Canada's lawful obligations to Indigenous Peoples and working collaboratively to renew the relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. This is the key to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous people in Canada." Bennett also referenced a change the government made to its defence on Dec. 31st, and she said that the minster of justice is "reviewing the government's litigation strategy, and working with cabinet colleagues to do so." Olive branch Hidden in the legal technicalities of the updated statement of defence, Crosbie said there's an olive branch from Ottawa. "They made an important concession, which is the dropping of the limitations defence. That could have affected many of the class members and stripped them of their right to make a claim," he said. The "limitations defence" essentially means that there's a time limit on how long somebody has to sue. In the case of sexual abuse, there's no time limit, but for other types of abuse, the Labrador residential schools abuse happened beyond the time limit. "A good number of the class members were not actually sexual abused. They may have suffered abuse, they may have suffered psychological abuse, but not sexual abuse directly," Crosbie said. "It wasn't applied against class members in other parts of the country, so Canada is making an important concession now that they won't apply it against class members in Newfoundland and Labrador." All of this is just a small facet of the overall case, where Ottawa has been fighting to deny responsibility for abuse suffered by aboriginal students at residential schools in Labrador. In 2008, the federal government offered a formal apology for residential schools, and paid a settlement to survivors for the abuse suffered, but Labrador natives were left out of that. Throughout the fall, as part of a class-action lawsuit, dozens of students from Labrador have testified in open court about sexual violation, physical violence, and emotional abuse suffered at the schools in Labrador. As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, one of the recommendations called on the federal government to settle outstanding litigation with the indigenous groups left out of the overall residential schools apology. But after years of legal back-and-forth with the Stephen Harper Conservative government, and months of trial time in court this fall, the case is coming close to an end. Crosbie said he's hopeful based on Bennett's statement about "reviewing the government's litigation strategy," and another sentence which said, "The Government of Canada is open to exploring other options to address this claim." "They're still dithering," he said. "They want to make an offer of settlement -- that's what I get from this statement -- they want to make an offer of settlement, but they haven't quite gotten to what that's going to look like." Crosbie is hoping the federal government will agree to sit down with a mediator in the next two or three weeks, and hash out some sort of out-of-court settlement. If they wait any longer than that, the trial will be finished and it will likely be up to the judge. "If they're going to act, they need to act on this by agreeing to mediation," he said. "I think it's virtually guaranteed that if they do that, there will be a satisfactory outcome for everybody." CANNAVEST CORP: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Schuck" ---------------------------------------------------------------- CannaVest Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that counsel for the lead plaintiff, Steve Schuck, has filed a "consolidated amended complaint". On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero). Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. The Company's response to the consolidated amended complaint was due on November 13, 2015. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time. CBC PIPELINE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Robinson, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CBC Pipeline, LLC a/k/a CBC Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03087-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, December 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. CBC Pipeline, LLC is an Ohio corporation providing third party services, including inspection, for the construction and maintenance of oil and natural gas transmission, midstream and gathering lines, facility construction, meter runs and many other types of oil and gas construction throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net cfundora@bm.net CCC INFO SERVICES: "Sisavath" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sisavath v. CCC Information Services Inc., Case No. 2015CA011671, was removed from 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-81727- KAM to the Proceeding. CCC Information Services provides auto claims and collision repair software, workflow tools, and technologies to automotive collision repairers, parts suppliers, and property/casualty insurance carriers in the United States. The company is based in Chicago Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq. HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A. 3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 683 2300 Facsimile: (561) 697 3852 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com - and - James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463 2101 Facsimile: (202) 463 2103 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason David Sternberg, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Ave. Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (561) 213 5635 Facsimile: (305) 459 6550 E-mail: jason.sternberg@hoganlovells.com - and - Kathleen Patricia Lally, Esq. Mark S. Mester, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876 7700 E-mail: kathleen.lally@lw.com mark.mester@lw.com - and - Allen Paige Pegg, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, 27th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459 6641 Facsimile: (305) 459 6550 E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Naylor Farms Royalty Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. "On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma," the Company said. "The purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We have responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and defenses." Discovery is ongoing and information and documents continue to be exchanged. The class has not been certified. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Tuesday, October 13, 2015. The plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to determine, as a matter of law, that natural gas is not marketable until it is in a condition and location to be transported in an interstate pipeline and other dispositive issues. The Company is preparing its response to both motions. "We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Naylor Farms Case will have on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matters, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. Plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms Case have indicated that, if the class is certified, they seek damages in excess of $5,000 which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action and are vigorously defending the case," the Company said. CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Denies Allegations in "Dodson" Royalty Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has responded to the Plaintiff's petition and denied the allegations in the case, Amanda Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson (the "Plaintiff"), filed a complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with allegation similar to those asserted in the Naylor Farms Case related to post-production deductions, and include clams for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The alleged class includes non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. "We have responded to the Plaintiff's petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses," the Company said. "At this time, a class has not been certified and discovery has not yet commenced. We are not currently able to estimate a reasonable possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Dodson Case will have on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. We dispute Plaintiff's claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action and are vigorously defending the case." CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Has Moved to Dismiss "Donelson" Royalty Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery has yet to begin in the case, Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ("Donelson Case"), alleging claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and surface lessees," the Company said. The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. "Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages," the Company said. "We have joined in Motions to Dismiss filed by the other defendants. At this time, a class has not been certified and discovery has yet to begin. "We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Donelson Case will have on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the Donelson Case meets the requirements for a class action and are vigorously defending the case." CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Briscoe Firm Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle") (NYSE: CMG) and several officers and directors for acts taken during the period of February 4, 2015 to January 5, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are investigating additional legal claims against the officers and Board of Directors of Chipotle. If you are an affected Chipotle shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you. According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) its quality controls were not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace safety regulations; (ii) its quality controls were inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, its public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 6, 2016, Chipotle announced that it was served in December 2015 with a federal subpoena, requiring the Company to produce extensive documents following the August 2014's criminal investigation of the dangerous norovirus outbreak in Simi Valley, California. Chipotle disclosed that the investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations. Chipotle stock dropped significantly immediately following this announcement. The Plaintiff is represented by: The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC Willie Briscoe, 877-728-9607 E-mail: shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com or Powers Taylor LLP Patrick Powers, 877-728-9607 E-mail: shareholder@powerstaylor.com CIGNA CORP: "Amara" Plaintiffs Respond to Plan Benefits Formula --------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the "Amara" cash balance pension plan litigation have responded to the Company's proposed method for calculating additional pension benefits due to class members. In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre- conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre- conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to the District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify the class. The parties again appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's denial of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the District Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the class. In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-hearing with the Second Circuit that was subsequently denied in March 2015. "Neither the Company nor the plaintiffs have chosen to appeal further. The Company has submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members, and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. Timing of completion of this phase remains uncertain," the Company said. CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Franco" Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs' appeal in the case, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. CITIGROUP INC: "Lewis-Gursky" Suit Goes from S.D.N.Y to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Lewis-Gursky v. Citigroup, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-Cv-03213, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02887-SCB- MAP to the proceeding. Citigroup, a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services to consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions. The company serves approximately 200 million customer accounts in 160 countries and jurisdictions. Segments The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). The company is based in New York, New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam T. Klein, Esq. Christopher McNerney, Esq Molly Anne Brooks, Esq OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Ave Fl 29 New York, NY 10016-5902 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 Facsimile: (212) 977 4005 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com cmcnerney@outtengolden.com mbrooks@outtengolden.com - and - David J. Cohen, Esq. 604 Spruce St Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873 4836 E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com - and - Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq. Sam Jones Smith, Esq. BURR & SMITH, LLP 111 2nd Ave NE Ste 1100 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3434 Telephone: (813) 253 2010 Facsimile: (813) 254 8391 E-mail: ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com The Defendants are represented By: Derek Jon Dilberian, Esq. Michael Jonathan Puma, Esq. Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste 5300 Miami, FL 33131-2339 Telephone: (305) 415 3000 Facsimile: (877) 432 9652 E-mail: ddilberian@morganlewis.com CITIZENS FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Still Pending in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains pending in California. The Company is a defendant in a purported class action complaint filed in December 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The named plaintiff purports to represent a "national class" of customers who allegedly received automated calls to their cell phones from the bank or its agents, without customer consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The litigation is ongoing and the Company continues to engage in discussions with the plaintiff on this matter. CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend LIBOR Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Citizens Financial Group, Inc. is a defendant in lawsuits in which allegations have been made that RBS manipulated U.S. dollar LIBOR to the detriment of the Company's customers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The lawsuits include a purported class action on behalf of borrowers of the Company whose interest rates were tied to U.S. dollar LIBOR. The plaintiffs in these cases assert various theories of liability, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Company is vigorously defending these matters, but is unable to predict the outcome of these matters. CITY WIDE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Andreh Fazelimoghadam v. City Wide Transportation, Inc., Zohrab Grigoryan, and Does 1-99, Case No. BC604190 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 14, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide medical transportation services to medical service providers throughout Southern California, including Kaiser Permanente. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW, APC 80 S. Lake Avenue, .Suite 880 Pasadena, CA 91101-2672 Telephone: (626) 396-9900 Facsimile: (626) 270-4045 E-mail: firm@romerolaw.com CHUBB CORPORATION: MOU Reached in ACE Merger Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The Chubb Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants and the plaintiffs in the class actions related to the Company's merger deal with ACE Limited have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. On June 30, 2015, Chubb entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) with ACE Limited (ACE), a company organized under the laws of Switzerland, and William Investment Holdings Corporation (Merger Sub), a New Jersey corporation and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of ACE, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Chubb, with Chubb surviving as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of ACE (the Merger). ACE has indicated that shortly after the completion of the Merger, it expects to merge Chubb with and into ACE INA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect subsidiary of ACE, with ACE INA Holdings Inc. continuing as the surviving corporation. Chubb, the Board, ACE and/or Merger Sub were named as defendants in 10 putative class actions brought by purported Chubb shareholders challenging the Merger in the New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, Chancery Division. The suits are captioned The Sadie Nauy Charitable Found. v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C- 012040-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Anne Cutler v. John D. Finnegan, et al., C-012041-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Sidney Weiman v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012043-15 (filed July 14, 2015); Renee Sayegh v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012045-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Judy Mesirov v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012046-15 (filed July 20, 2015); Shiva Stein v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012047- 15 (filed July 21, 2015); Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012048-15 (filed July 22, 2015); Jane Schwartzman v. Zoe Baird Budinger, et al., C-012049-15 (filed July 20, 2015); Saunders v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012050-15 (filed July 23, 2015); and Polatsch v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012051- 15 (filed July 23, 2015) (collectively, the Actions). The complaints filed in the Actions allege, among other things, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Chubb through an unfair and inadequate process and by failing to maximize the value of Chubb. Several of the complaints also allege that Chubb, ACE and/or Merger Sub have aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaints filed in the Mesirov, Weiman and Schwartzman Actions added, among other things, allegations that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by ACE on August 3, 2015 contained material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs seek as relief, among other things, an injunction against the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented, and an award of damages. Chubb believes the allegations made in the Actions are without merit. On October 12, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. Pursuant to the settlement contemplated by the terms of the MOU, Chubb filed a Current Report on Form 8-K on October 13, 2015 that included certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval. It is expected that a hearing will be scheduled at which the New Jersey Superior Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders of Chubb under New Jersey law challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. COMMAND SECURITY: Agrees to Settle "Leal" Labor Case for $2-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has agreed to settle the case, Leal v. Command Security Corporation, for $2.0 million. On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a plaintiff's motion (Leal v. Command Security Corporation) to certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by the Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the State of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date of trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement at the time of their employment. The case is a certified class action involving allegations that the Company violated certain California state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks. On November 12, 2015, the Company agreed to a maximum settlement amount of $2.0 million, including plaintiff's attorney fees and costs, administration costs, and certain other miscellaneous costs. As part of the settlement, the parties further agreed that (i) the final settlement will be subject to court approval; (ii) a minimum of 50% of the net proceeds will be distributed to the class; and (iii) the settlement will be paid in two installments, the first to be paid upon court approval of the final settlement agreement and the second to be paid no later than one year from final approval. The Leal v. Command Security Corporation lawsuit is one of numerous class action lawsuits filed during the past year against security guard companies in California related to meal and rest break regulations. The Company aggressively defended its position in this case; however, given the current environment in California regarding similar lawsuits, the Company believes that settling this matter under these terms provides a favorable outcome. In addition, the Company considered its assessment of the cost to continue to defend the case through trial and a potential appeal in its decision to settle. While the parties have established a maximum settlement amount at $2.0 million, the Company has recorded a $1.4 million provision in the quarter ended September 30, 2015. This provision is based on the terms of the settlement and historical statistical information as to the expected rate of participation in similar cases provided to the Company by claims administrators. In the event the rate of participation in the settlement by class members were to exceed current estimates the final settlement amount could increase to the maximum settlement amount. The settlement will be administered over the next one to two years. COMMUNITY BANK: Awaiting Final Approval of Class Suit Accord ------------------------------------------------------------ Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the court issued on July 14, 2015, an order preliminarily approving the settlement reached in the first of two related class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which cases were commenced on October 30, 2013 and May 23, 2014, respectively. The two related cases allege, on behalf of similarly situated class members, that notices provided by the Bank in connection with the repossession of automobiles failed to comply with certain requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial Code and related statutes. In accordance with mediation which occurred in September 2014, the settlement provides for establishment of a settlement fund of $2.8 million in exchange for release of all claims of the class members covered by these actions. A litigation settlement charge of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement of the class actions was previously recorded in the third quarter of 2014. The settlement is subject to the Court's final approval following notice to the class members, including the ability of class members to oppose or opt-out of the settlement. CONSOLIDATED LLC: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Selvin De Leon v. Consolidated, LLC and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC604200 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Consolidated, LLC owns and operates a non-residential construction company located at 5657 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ophir J. Bitton, Esq. BITTON & ASSOCIATES 7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 356-1006 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued in Washington for FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Pert-Kelley,on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01917 (W.D. Wash., December 7, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Convergent Outsourcing Inc. operates a contingency collection company in Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Symmes, Esq. SYMMES LAW GROUP 1001 FOURTH AVENUE, STE 3200 SEATTLE, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 390-9451 Facsimile: (206) 424-4691 E-mail: richard@symmeslaw.com COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Facing Class Suit on Meal Breaks --------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that during the quarter ended September 30, 2015, we became party to a class action claim wherein plaintiff alleges failure to provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, and other related wage and hour claims. CR BARD: Faces "Bures" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filters --------------------------------------------------------------- Florence Bures v. C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02420-RDM (M.D. Penn., December 16, 2015) is an action for personal injuries as a direct and proximate result of being implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by Bard. The Defendants own and operate a company that develops, manufactures, and markets medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie R. Capouellez, Esquire LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K Philadelphia, PA 19112 Telephone: (215) 952-6910 E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com CYTRX CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $4 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ: CYTR), a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology, announced on December 10, 2015 that it reached a successful agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, titled In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation. The consolidated case was brought against the company and/or a number of current and former directors and officers following allegations of stock promotion. The agreement was reached in connection with a voluntary mediation led by the Honorable Judge Dickran Tevrizian, a retired federal judge from the Central District of California. The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing and includes a full release of CytRx and the current and former directors and officers in connection with the allegations. CytRx believes the allegations are completely without merit, and is settling the lawsuit to avoid potentially lengthy and costly litigation. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval. The terms of the agreement provide for a settlement payment to the class of $4,000,000, of which at least $3,500,000 will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company will also issue $4,500,000 worth of shares to the class, which will be between a minimum of 1,200,000 shares of common stock and a maximum of 1,800,000 shares of common stock to the class depending on the prevailing stock price at the time of the court's final approval of the settlement agreement. "We are pleased to reach a settlement agreement on the securities class action and believe it is in the best interests of CytRx and our shareholders. We will continue to focus on our pre-commercial activities for aldoxorubicin, our pivotal, global Phase 3 trial with aldoxorubicin in second-line soft tissue sarcomas, our newly designated drug candidate DK049, and additional research and development with our LADRTM technology," said Steven A. Kriegsman, Chairman and CEO. CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. CytRx currently is focused on the clinical development of aldoxorubicin, its improved version of the widely used chemotherapeutic agent doxorubicin, and DK049, a novel drug conjugate which is expected to enter clinic trials in 2016. CytRx is also expanding its pipeline of oncology candidates at its laboratory facilities in Freiburg, Germany, through its LADR(TM) (Linker Activated Drug Release) technology platform, a discovery engine designed to leverage CytRx's expertise in albumin biology and linker technology for the development of a new class of anti-cancer therapies. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Scope of Age Discrimination Suit May Widen -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that the scope of a federal government lawsuit against Darden Restaurants over age discrimination could grow from two people to at least 9,500 applicants, according to the latest updates in the case. It's the first time in the case that an estimated number of people potentially affected has been included in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's allegations. A federal judge has required that the EEOC provide further details by Feb. 8. Darden is fighting the lawsuit. The company declined to comment on the new details. Previously, a Darden spokesman said the EEOC's allegations are "unsubstantiated" and the company is proud of its commitment to diversity. The EEOC sued Darden in February, alleging that two white men were passed over for jobs at Seasons 52 in Coral Gables because of age discrimination. They were 42 and 52 years old. The suit alleges that one of the men was told that the restaurant wasn't looking for "old white guys." In another development in the case, U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard has told the EEOC to either seek a collective-action status or to show the agency has "authority to represent a far-reaching class of individuals without the court first determining the scope of the class." The judge wrote on Jan. 25 in her order that there were too few cases where the EEOC filed a class-discrimination lawsuit itself. Questions over the scope of the lawsuit arose because the EEOC is demanding more information, or discovery, from Darden. The EEOC said it received data from Darden regarding "28 stores in Excel spreadsheet format reflecting what appears to be the identification of at least 53,000 applicants. EEOC estimates 9,540 (18%) are age 40 or over and will need to be contacted by EEOC as potential claimants." Labor attorney Michael Hanna of Morgan & Morgan said the Darden case could set precedent for the EEOC's ability to act on behalf of groups without being granted class-action status. "The judge is saying to the EEOC, she's not sure, show me your authority (to represent a class). It's not very developed. It's not a clear answer," Mr. Hanna said. The judge did cite at least one case where the EEOC sought collective-action status. The EEOC accused Darden of delays in a recent motion filed with the court: "Because Defendants have delayed production and provided largely incomplete applicant discovery, as detailed below, EEOC has been impeded . . ." Mr. Hanna said he considers such delays a common tactic for defendants in litigation of this nature: "The defendant makes boilerplate objections to discovery, while simultaneously trying to run the clock out." Darden operated 43 locations of Seasons 52 at the time of the lawsuit filing. Orlando's only Fortune 500 company, Darden also owns the Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse chains. DEUTSCHE BANK: To Face British Suit Over High-Speed Trading ----------------------------------------------------------- Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that Deutsche Bank, already troubled by lawsuits and official investigations, faces another challenge. A group of lawyers said that they planned to sue the company in British court, accusing the bank of using high-speed trading software to profit in foreign currency markets at the expense of customers. The lawsuit is to be filed by end of 2016 on behalf of companies, investors and even some central banks that frequently buy and sell currencies. The lawsuit would mirror one filed in New York last December by some of the same law firms. That lawsuit asserts that Deutsche Bank used a software platform known as Autobahn to take advantage of millisecond changes in exchange rates to give clients worse prices than they were entitled to. Deutsche Bank denied the claims in the lawsuit, saying in a statement: "We disagree with the allegations and will be defending ourselves in court." The lawsuit was filed last January against Deutsche Bank in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class-action lawsuit attracted little notice in the media until the German magazine Der Spiegel reported it. In November, the British bank Barclays agreed to a settlement with the New York State Department of Financial Services on claims very similar to the ones made against Deutsche Bank. Barclays agreed to pay $150 million and to fire an employee held responsible for the wrongdoing. Christopher Rother, a Berlin lawyer involved in the lawsuit against Deutsche Bank, said that it was impossible to quantify the financial damage to the bank's clients because the trading system was so opaque. "I would say in the billions," said Mr. Rother, who is head of the Berlin office of Hausfeld, a law firm with offices in Washington and other locations that filed the New York lawsuit in conjunction with several other firms. Mr. Rother said that the complainants would ask the court to compel Deutsche Bank to turn over records that would shed light on the scale of the potential losses. In recent years, Deutsche Bank has battled a long list of accusations of wrongdoing in financial markets. In November, the bank agreed with the authorities in the United States to pay a fine of $258 million in connection with allegations it conducted transactions with countries subject to American sanctions, including Iran, Libya, Syria, Myanmar and Sudan. In April, Deutsche Bank agreed to $2.5 billion in penalties related to accusations it was among banks that manipulated global interest rates underpinning trillions of dollars in mortgages, student loans and other debt. The bank is also among those accused of colluding to rig benchmark rates for currencies, and it faces separate lawsuits from companies and other investors who say they lost money as a result. Anshu Jain resigned as co-chief executive of Deutsche Bank in June amid complaints by investors that he had not done enough to infuse a greater sense of ethics in the London-based investment bank, which was at the center of most of the wrongdoing. The latest accusations present another distraction for Mr. Jain's successor, John Cryan, the former chief financial officer at the Swiss bank UBS, who is in the middle of a broad reorganization of Deutsche Bank designed to make it less complex and more profitable. The currency lawsuits also illustrate the perils of high-speed trading and the potential for abuse by sophisticated market players. Trades in the huge foreign currency market can be executed by computer platforms in milliseconds. The lawsuit claims that Deutsche Bank's Autobahn platform delayed transactions sometimes by hundreds of milliseconds -- an eternity in the world of currency trading. If prices in that period moved in Deutsche Bank's favor, it executed the trades, according to the New York lawsuit. If not, the bank refused the trades, the lawsuit claims. "Deutsche Bank exploited its superior bargaining position and superior knowledge" of the market, the lawsuit says. The trading systems were devised to defend banks from attempts to exploit them in their role as intermediaries between currency buyers and sellers. Barclays had a currency trading system known as BARX that could delay trades slightly to detect and foil so- called toxic flows -- attempts by hedge funds or others to game the system using their own sophisticated software. But Barclays did not distinguish between toxic flows and normal trading, according to the settlement with the New York State Department of Financial Services, which detailed the circumstances of the case. Instead, Barclays used the trading delays to profit from ordinary clients, the settlement said. When some clients complained that the software was causing them to miss opportunities to trade at better rates with other banks, Barclays senior managers instructed the bank's traders and information technology specialists to give misleading answers, according to the settlement agreement. Traders were told to "just blame it on the weekend IT release and say it's being fixed," the settlement agreement said. The lead plaintiff in the class-action suit in New York is Axiom Investment Advisors, a small hedge fund. Mr. Rother said that his firm had been hired to represent several central banks that believed they had lost money because of the trading system. He would not name the central banks, but said they did not include the European Central Bank or the Bundesbank, the German central bank. Hausfeld also represents clients in Africa, Asia and Europe who believe they were victims of currency-trading manipulation. Mr. Rother said the case against Deutsche Bank would be filed in London, the center of global currency trading, around the middle of the year. DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Gov't Sues Over Misleading Job Prospects ---------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the government on Jan. 27 sued the operators of the for-profit DeVry University, alleging they misled consumers about students' job and earnings prospects. In the complaint, the Federal Trade Commission alleged that DeVry deceived students by claiming that 90 percent of its graduates actively seeking employment landed jobs in their fields within six months of graduation. The agency also says DeVry was misleading when it claimed its graduates had 15 percent higher incomes one year after graduation on average than graduates of all other colleges or universities. Instead of landing jobs in their field of study, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said, some graduates found themselves working as delivery drivers or restaurant servers. She said up to 50,000 or so students may have been affected by the alleged wrongdoing. In a statement, DeVry Education Group, parent of DeVry University, said the commission's allegations are "without a valid legal basis" and that the company "intends to vigorously contest" the complaint. The FTC is seeking a court order to stop DeVry from making its advertising claims, via TV, radio and elsewhere. Ms. Ramirez said the commission would seek monetary relief for those affected but that it was too early to say how much money that might involve. "Educational institutions like DeVry owe prospective students the truth about their graduates' success finding employment in their field of study and the income they can earn," Ms. Ramirez said. In concert with the FTC lawsuit, the Education Department announced its own action against DeVry. Under Secretary Ted Mitchell said the department has informed DeVry that it must stop making certain claims about its postgraduation outcomes and that it must inform students that it cannot substantiate those claims -- or risk losing federal student loan money if it fails to do so. DeVry, based in Downers Grove, Illinois, has more than 55 campuses across the country, offering online or on-campus degree programs in business, technology and healthcare technology. DIODES INCORPORATED: Appeal from Case Dismissal Pending ------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Diodes Incorporated remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13- cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 14-41141. The appeal is fully briefed and was argued on September 3, 2015. The Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision. DLJ MORTGAGE: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., CREDIT SUISSE MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION, ANDREW A. KIMURA, THOMAS ZINGALLI, JEFFREY A. ALTABEF, MICHAEL A. MARRIOTT, EVELYN ECHEVARRIA and CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC, Defendants. Civ. No. 08-5653 (PAC) EXHIBIT A-2 SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS THAT (1) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CERTIFICATES IN HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE TRUST ("HEMT") 2006-5 ON OR BEFORE JUNE 3, 2008; OR (2) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CERTIFICATES IN HEMT 2006-4, HEMT 2006-6, OR HEMT 2007-2 ON OR BEFORE MARCH 23, 2009 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (i) of the pendency of this action asserting claims against Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corporation, Andrew A. Kimura, Thomas Zingalli, Jeffrey A. Altabef, Michael A. Marriott, Evelyn Echevarria, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), relating to certain mortgage-backed securities (the "Action") as a class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above (the "Settlement Class") except for certain persons or entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition; and (ii) that a proposed settlement has been reached in this Action. A hearing will be held with respect to the settlement on May 10, 2016, at 10:00 A.M. before the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14C, New York, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things, (i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which Defendants will cause to be deposited the sum of $110 million U.S. dollars ($) into a settlement fund in exchange for (among other things) the dismissal of the Action and a release of claims against the Defendants and other related persons and entities, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, (ii) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against the Settlement Class; (iv) whether the Court should enter a bar order prohibiting members of the Settlement Class from pursuing or commencing any action against the Defendants or other related persons or entities with respect to the Released Claims, as set forth in the available Stipulation; (v) whether the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (vi) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses incurred in connection with the Action is reasonable and should be approved. Litigation Expenses may also include reimbursement of the expenses of Lead Plaintiff New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund in accordance with 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77z-1(a)(4). If you purchased or otherwise acquired certificates in the trusts listed above, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the settlement fund if you submit a claim form postmarked no later than May 5, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you have the right to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting no later than April 26, 2016, a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the Settlement Class, and that is available at www.HEMTMBSSettlement.com You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by submitting no later than April 12, 2016, a written request for exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures described in the more detailed notice. If the settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you submit a request to be excluded. This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the Action and the settlement. A detailed notice describing the Action, the proposed settlement, and the rights of members of the Settlement Class to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class and/or to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential Settlement Class Members. You may obtain a copy of this notice, a proof of claim form, or other information by writing to the following address or calling the following telephone number. HEMT MBS Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3266 Portland, OR 97208-3266 Toll Free: (877) 854-3797 info@HEMTMBSSettlement.com or by downloading the forms from www.HEMTMBSSettlement.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed notice referenced above and a proof of claim form, may be made to plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Joel P. Laitman Christopher Lometti Michael Eisenkraft 88 Pine Street, 14 Fourteenth Floor New York, N.Y. 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Email: jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com clometti@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com Steven J. Toll 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com Dated: January 20, 2016 By Order of the Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York EMC CORPORATION: 11 Class Suits Filed over Dell Inc. Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- EMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of November 6, 2015, 11 lawsuits challenging the Company's merger agreement with Dell Inc. have been filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders, of which eight were filed (or are now pending) in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, one was filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts, and two were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All of the lawsuits are purported shareholder class actions advancing substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company's directors and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the merger, as well as other remedies. Certain of the lawsuits also allege that the Company, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., Universal Acquisition Co., Silver Lake Partners, LLC, and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. On October 23, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion to consolidate all of the lawsuits then pending in state court in Massachusetts with and into the first-filed of those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci, et al. That action names as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of October 12, 2015), Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal Acquisition Co. On October 27, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, Sec. 7.40 et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company. On November 5, 2015, the Company and its directors filed motions (i) to stay or dismiss the actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the ground that those actions are duplicative of the actions pending in state court in Massachusetts; and (ii) to dismiss those same actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the complaints in those actions fail to allege a basis for the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. No defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading in the other lawsuits. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the Company's operations. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orlando" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Orlando, Jeremy Impellizzeri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., Docket No. 2:15-cv-06997 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Encore Receivable Management, Inc. operates a collection agency, which is headquartered in Olathe, Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com - and - David M. Barshay, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Antongiovanni, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-10921 (N.D. Ill., December 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services, LLC operates a consumer credit reporting agency throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Zamparo Jr., Esq. Jordan Mark Sartell, Esq. ZAMPARO LAW GROUP, P.C. 2300 Barrington Road, Suite 140 Hoffman Estates, IL 60169 Telephone: (224) 875-3202 Facsimile: (312) 276-4950 E-mail: roger@zamparo.com jordan@zamparolaw.com - and - John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC Land Title Building 100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Plaintiff Interim Co-Lead Counsels Named ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Orr, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that the first winners have emerged in the legal action against Excellus BlueCross BlueShield over the massive intrusion into the Rochester insurer's computer systems. The victory goes to neither Excellus nor the millions of the company's customers whose private data may have been stolen by hackers. Rather, the winners are the two lawyers who on Jan. 25 were named interim co-lead counsels for the plaintiffs in the prospective class-action lawsuit against Excellus. They are Hadley L. Matarazzo -- hmatarazzo@faraci.com -- of the Rochester law firm Faraci Lange and Robin L. Greenwald of Weitz & Luxenberg in New York City. Both are women, making their appointment somewhat noteworthy. They're backed by a two-lawyer executive committee, one of whom is a woman as well. It was early September, as you may recall, when Excellus disclosed that hackers had broken into its computer databases and rummaged around for as long as 17 months. The criminal intruders, who have not been publicly identified, had access to 10.5 million records containing names, addresses, identification numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information and medical data. Records from other companies under the Lifetime Healthcare umbrella were exposed as well. Numerous lawsuits were filed against the health insurer in the wake of the disclosure, all accusing the company of negligence in allowing hackers access to the records. Fourteen of those suits have been consolidated into a single case that is assigned to U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford in Rochester. The plaintiffs in those cases are represented by approximately 40 lawyers from firms all around the country. Lawyers formed five distinct teams, with each team submitting motions to Wolford asking that its team leaders be named co-counsel and other papers arguing against opposing teams. The legal scrap, which consumed more than two months, is typical of what happens when clusters of related civil actions are consolidated into one big case. The plaintiffs' lawyers vie to be a lead counsel, a position that can enhance the lead lawyers' reputation -- and, since they'll do most of the work, bill for far more hours and make a lot more money. In the order naming Ms. Matarazzo and Ms. Greenwald interim co- lead counsels, Wolford judged all five teams well-qualified but said the Faraci-Weitz group stood apart because it was the only one with "significant involvement from a local law firm, which the Court believes is important to effectively represent the class." Score one for the home team. The appointments are for renewable one-year terms, and are interim in that they will hold the lead counsel position only until a class of plaintiffs is certified. As the Democrat and Chronicle reported last fall, a key decision in the case will be who, if anybody, is included in the class of people allowed to pursue damages from Excellus. Some federal judges have ruled that plaintiffs can be included in the class only if they demonstrate they've actually been harmed; in this case, that would mean proving that one's personal information had been stolen and used to commit fraud or identify theft. Other judges have ruled that the fear that one's data could be misused was sufficient. If and when Judge Wolford certifies a class, Ms. Matarazzo and Ms. Greenwald would have to apply to all over again to be lead co-counsels, and other lawyers would be able to chime in again. But all of that's a ways off. First the lawyers must, as Wolford has directed, file a new consolidated complaint and work with Excellus's lawyers on a schedule. Then there's likely to be all sorts of legal maneuvering and arguing before any decision about who belongs in the class. Determining the ultimate winner in the case -- Excellus or the customers whose personal data they let hackers have their way with -- is still many months, and quite possibly several years, in the future. FANDUEL INC: "Ritchie" Suit Goes from State Court to E.D. Ark. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ritchie v. Fanduel Inc., Case No. 58CV-15-00537, was removed from Pope County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv- 00776-JLH to the Proceeding. According to the Complaint, the Defendant is allegedly operating an illegal online sports betting (gambling) business within the state of Arkansas. FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is based in New York, New York with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex G. Streett, Esq. James A. Streett, Esq. Robert M. Veach, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Telephone: (479) 968 2030 Facsimile: (479) 968 6253 Email: Alex@StreettLaw.com James@StreettLaw.com Robert@StreettLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: William A. Waddell , Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 Telephone: (501) 370 1510 E-mail: waddell@fridayfirm.com FANDUEL INC: Sued in Oregon Over Alleged Online Sports Betting -------------------------------------------------------------- Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports that a class-action suit has been filed in federal court in Portland against two daily fantasy sports sites, FanDuel and DraftKings, alleging both businesses are operating illegal online sports betting. Brandon Peck, a resident of Polk County, brought the suit on behalf of himself and more than 100 other Oregon players who lost money in the past three years while placing wagers online through the two sites, Draftkings.com and FanDuel.com. The suit, filed on Jan. 25, asks the court to halt the companies' operations and have each business pay players back double the amount they've "wrongfully lost," seeking more than $5 million. The suit is the latest class-action suit filed against the daily fantasy sports websites. More than 30 have been filed in more than 10 states. They allege that the players were duped into participating in illegal gambling operations that gave an unfair advantage to their own employees who also participated in the daily competitions. Like fantasy sports games, where groups of people play against one another, assembling hypothetical teams and scoring points based on how players did in actual games, the two companies have set up online daily and weekly games. Players pay an entry fee to a website -- from 25 cents to several thousands of dollars -- to play dozens if not hundreds of opponents, with prize pools that can pay $2 million to the winner. Players whose teams score the most points -- based on the actual statistics of those players -- win the most money. In the federal suit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, attorney Thomas D'Amore argues that both sites violate Oregon law, which expressly prohibits "gambling" and "betting". He cites actions taken by other states challenging the fantasy sports league sites. For example, he noted that the general counsel for the Georgia State Lottery wrote to the defendants, arguing that the state's constitution bans gambling except for state lottery activities. He included an October order by the Nevada Gaming Control Board ordering both companies out of that state unless they obtained a gambling license. A month later, New York's Attorney General sent the companies an order to cease operations, also finding that their businesses amounted to illegal gambling under New York law. New York's attorney general began an investigation last fall after revelations that DraftKings and FanDuel allowed their employees, many who had information not available to other players, to play at each other's sites and win large amounts of money. The companies have argued that fantasy sports aren't gambling but a game of skill, not chance, which exempts them from a 2006 federal law prohibiting online gambling. On its website, FanDuel.com, the company contends that fantasy sports received a specific exemption from the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Mr. Peck's lawyer argues the games require very little to no skill, that the outcomes are determined largely by chance and "return casino-type 'odds.'" Many of the companies' customers "lack even a rudimentary understanding of sports, or getting strategy in general" and yet place wagers on the two websites and "lose and win based on pure luck," Mr. Peck's lawyers wrote. Though DraftKings is based in Boston and FanDuel is based in New York, the lawsuit argues that a federal judge in Oregon has jurisdiction because the companies conduct business in Oregon, seek players from Oregon and have harmed more than 100 players in this state. FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Stein" Merger Suit in Marion County ------------------------------------------------------------ First Merchants Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported shareholder of Ameriana Bancorp filed on July 8, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Shiva Stein, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated vs. Ameriana Bancorp et al., Cause No. 49D10-1507-PL-022566 in the Marion County, Indiana Superior Court 10 against Ameriana Bancorp, its Board of Directors and First Merchants Corporation. Plaintiff amended the complaint on September 23, 2015. The amended complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties by the members of the Board of Directors regarding the proposed Merger between the Companies, and claims against First Merchants Corporation for allegedly aiding and abetting those alleged breaches. The plaintiff seeks (1) class certification, (2) to enjoin the merger, (3) a declaration that the Merger Agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, (4) an order directing the members of Ameriana Bancorp's Board of Directors to commence a new sales process, (5) an order rescinding the Merger Agreement, and (6) compensatory damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees, and costs in an unspecified amount. At this early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to assess the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate any potential financial impact of the lawsuit on Ameriana Bancorp. Ameriana Bancorp, its Board of Directors and First Merchants Corporation believe the claims against them are without merit and intend to contest the matter vigorously. FIRST MERCHANTS: Facing "Ewing" Merger Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- First Merchants Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported shareholder of Ameriana Bancorp filed on September 22, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Darrell F. Ewing v. Ameriana, et al., No. 1:15-CV-01491 in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana against Ameriana Bancorp, its Board of Directors and First Merchants Corporation. The complaint generally alleges various claims of federal securities law violations and that the Directors of Ameriana Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties by providing materially inadequate disclosures and material disclosure omissions with respect to the proposed Merger. The plaintiff seeks (1) class certification, (2) to enjoin the Merger or, in the event the Merger is completed before entry of an injunction, to rescind the Merger or be awarded an unspecified amount of rescissory damages, (3) compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and (4) costs and expenses, including attorneys' and expert fees. At this early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to assess the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate any potential financial impact of the lawsuit on Ameriana Bancorp. Ameriana Bancorp, its Board of Directors and First Merchants Corporation believe the claims against them are without merit and intend to contest the matter vigorously. FLINT, MI: Governor, Others Named in 2 Suits Over Water Crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Wimbley, writing for Fox 2, reports that the situation in Flint is dire. Two class action lawsuits will be filed against Gov. Rick Snyder and others believed to be blamed for the crisis. "These are war crimes on American soil, right here, in our own backyard," said resident Andrew Johnson. As frustration over Flint's water crisis continues to boil, Keith Pemberton is getting ready for a legal battle. "Everybody in the city has been poisoned, everybody," Pemberton said. He'll join a number of residents as lawyers announce two new class action lawsuits against Gov. Rick Snyder, former Flint emergency managers Darnell Earley, Jerry Ambrose and a host of state and local government agencies. It is for their role in one of nation's the biggest public policy blunders that will impact thousands of people's lives for years to come. "After 30 days the lead leaves your blood stream and goes into the organs of your body," Pemberton said. "It takes about 10-15 years for it to do its maximum damage." "We all got death sentences, simple as that." Pemberton lives with his wife daughter and three grandchildren. They are getting by with donations of bottled water, though there's not enough to go around. Bathing is kept to a minimum. "We shower once a week," Pemberton said. "And it's not a hot shower because the fumes or the vapors that come out." The pace was steady at Flint firehouse Engine 61, where National Guard members are handing out cases of bottled water and Brita filters to residents like Demetric Dubois and his 11-year-old daughter Akia. She is just one of thousands of Flint children that consumed the contaminated water. "We've got to get her lead levels checked," Dubois said. "We're supposed to take her. We are going to take all the kids and get them checked out." Many feel the state should cover the medical expenses of lead poisoned children and that for all of his apologies Gov. Rick Snyder hasn't come close to addressing their concerns. "When Gov. Snyder came through he didn't come to Flint directly," said Johnson. "He came on the outskirts of Flint, he (didn't) come here. He doesn't want to see this. Who wants to deal with poor people. Everybody is considered poor here." The Obama administration declared a federal emergency in Flint but stopped short of calling it a major disaster, denying the city nearly $100 million in aid. Snyder is appealing that decision but Pemberton isn't holding his breath. "If it takes him as long to do that as it did for him to even acknowledge there was an emergency here," Pemberton said. "We'll all be dead." The announcement for new class action lawsuits will take place at University of Michigan Flint. Snyder will deliver his State of the State Address and will undoubtedly address this water crisis. FLINT, MI: Subpoena Deadline for Snyder Records Passes ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Jackman, writing for Detroit Metro Times, reports that the deadline has just passed for subpoenas to be delivered to the Snyder administration requesting records, the first credible legal action against the governor related to Flint we've heard of. Gov. Snyder, as part of his State of the State address, declared, "I will release my 2014 and 2015 e-mails regarding Flint to you, the citizens, so that you will have answers to your questions about what we've done . . ." Why shouldn't every interested citizen have those emails already? Because the governor is immune from state Freedom of Information Act laws, and Michigan is just one of two states in which this is the case. And despite Gov. Snyder's announcement, critics immediately countered that the 2013 emails should have been included, as that was when key decisions were made regarding the use of Flint River water. And, needless to say, it was unfortunate that the cache of released emails opened with a message whose body was completely redacted. And, in the wake of that email dump, one legislator pointed out that not all Snyder emails were released; as least one email sent to Gov. Snyder's public email address concerning the Flint crisis didn't appear. Is that too minor a quibble? The Free Press' Rochelle Riley didn't seem to think so. An executive who's used to running private corporations, who's used to not having to open his books, who's used to not having to be accountable, and has tried to re-create government in that mold. Which is why, in the end, the people of Flint have had to resort to the tools used by consumers against corporate America: a class-action lawsuit. Even now, as PR handlers and flacks circle their wagons around the embattled governor, chances are the public will finally get a chance to look through the communications that conducted to this crisis, and to see more of how cavalierly the bean-counting, legally shielded emergency managers treated the health and welfare of Michigan residents. While it's satisfying to see the heat turned up on Gov. Snyder, it's important to remember why transparency is important. The American system of government says the government is supposed to answer to the people. Not in the way that a businessman surrounds himself with lawyers, ad men, and PR flacks and "answers" pre-screened questions with selected information. No, the people have a right to see the actions of the government without filters, with limited redaction, and to demand answers and get them speedily. A lot of people shrugged when the emergency manager law was passed. "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs," they said. FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Freeport-McMoRan Inc. ("Freeport" or the "Company") (NYSE:FCX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, and docketed under 16-cv-00186, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Freeport securities between February 27, 2015 and January 15, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Freeport securities during the Class Period, you have until March 28, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Freeport, a natural resource company, engages in the acquisition of mineral assets, oil, and natural gas resources. Freeport's co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), James Moffett ("Moffett"), played a key role in developing the Company's Indonesian operations, and often led negotiations for Freeport with Indonesian legislators and officials, rather than leaving it to the head executive of Freeport Indonesia. In January 2015, Moffett, then the Company's Executive Chairman, appointed Maroef Sjamsuddin ("Sjamsuddin"), a retired Air Vice Marshal of the Indonesian Air Force and deputy chief of Indonesia's National Intelligence Agency, to head Freeport Indonesia, despite Sjamsuddin's lack of experience in mining. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sjamsuddin had discussed, with senior officials in the Indonesian government, bribing Indonesian government officials in return for an extension of Freeport's right to operate in the country; (ii) that Freeport had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Freeport's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 19, 2015, the Financial Times reported the news, initially reported by the Jakarta Globe, that Freeport Indonesia has pledged its full cooperation in an impending inquiry by the Indonesian House of Representatives in to allegations that Speaker Setya Novanto's ("Novanto") solicited bribes from Freeport. On this news, Freeport stock fell $0.36, or 4.1%, to close at $8.41 on November 19, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the Indonesian magazine Tempo published an interview with Novanto concerning the probe into Novanto's dealings with Freeport Indonesia. Concerning his meetings with Sjamsuddin, Novanto stated, in part, that he believed Sjamsuddin had attempted to "blackmail" and "entrap" him. On this news, Freeport stock fell $0.20, or 2.4%, to close at $8.10 on November 25, 2016. On November 26, 2015, the blog Indonesian Development Monitoring reported that Indonesia's State-Owned Enterprise Workers Union intended to request that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigate Freeport for potential violations of the FCPA, "by engaging in what we believe is likely . . . bribery of high-level government official and Chief of House Speaker in Indonesia to renew[] the Freeport mining contract." On December 3, 2015, testifying before an Indonesian parliamentary committee regarding Novanto's solicitation of bribes from Freeport, Sjamsuddin stated that he had turned over his recording of the conversation with Novanto to his superiors at Freeport to "show my integrity and transparency" before the recording was turned over to the Indonesian government. On this news, Freeport stock fell $0.15, or 1.9%, to close at $7.68 on December 3, 2015. On December 28, 2015, Moffett resigned from his position as Executive Chairman of Freeport. On this news, Freeport stock fell $0.72, or 9.5%, to close at $6.85 on December 28, 2015. On January 19, 2016, pre-market, Freeport announced the resignation of Sjamsuddin, citing "personal reasons." On this news, Freeport stock fell $0.39, or 8.97%, to close at $3.96 on January 19, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. FRONTLINE ASSET: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barrat Choonoo, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Frontline Asset Stratgies, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08514 (D.N.J., December 8, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Frontline Asset Stratgies, LLC operates an accounts receivables management in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com GANNETT CO: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Gannett Co., Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed in 2014 over telemarketing calls, the Company said in its Form 10- Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015. On January 2, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against Gannett in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Casagrand et al v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al). The suit claims various violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from allegedly improper telemarketing calls made to consumers by one of the Company's vendors. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class that would include all telemarketing calls made by the vendor or the Company. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation ($1,500 for willful violations). "The ultimate outcome of this proceeding is uncertain, but may be material to our results of operations and cash flows. We are vigorously defending the case and have asserted cross-claims against the vendor," the Company said. GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Alexandria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02840 (W.D. Lo., December 16, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate contracts during the Class Period and to raise prices by submitting artificially inflated bids to Plaintiff and Class Members during the Class Period. General Chemical Corporation operates a distribution facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that manufactures and supplies of water treatment chemicals, including ALUM. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russ M. Herman, Esq. Stephen J. Herman, Esq. John S. Creevy, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LO 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: Rherman@hhklawfirm.com Sherman@hhklawfirm.com Jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com - and - Kenneth M. Carter, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 4521 Baronne St. New Orleans, LA 70115 Telephone: (225) 634-3052 Facsimile: (225) 634-3078 E-mail: Kmcarter1@bellsouth.net - and - Charles E. Johnson Jr., Esq. CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 915 3rd St Alexandria, LA 71301 Telephone: (318) 449-5015 Facsimile: (318) 449-5019 E-mail: Charles.Johnson@cityofalex.com GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Cheerios Gluten-Fee Label ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to Legal Newsline's Greg Travis, reports to the federal Food and Drug Administration have led to consumers who purchased Cheerios labeled as "gluten-free" filing class action lawsuits. A Kentucky woman has filed one such lawsuit against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios labeled as gluten-free that she had purchased actually contained gluten levels more than two times higher than allowed under FDA standards. The suit, filed in a California federal court, charges violations of California and Kentucky consumer protection laws. It was filed in late 2015 following FDA testing on gluten-free Cheerios that was initiated by consumer complaints. General Mills issued a recall on Oct. 5. Thomas McGarity, professor of law at the University of Texas, recently told Legal Newsline that the impetus for FDA action in these types of cases is almost always consumer complaints. "(W)hen it comes to food safety, [the agency has] inspectors go out and inspect processing facilities. They've done even more of this since the enactment of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010," Mr. McGarity said. "[But] when it comes to mislabeling, that's been around for a long time. It has never been proactively enforced by the FDA -- it's almost always reactive." The FDA conducted tests on 36 samples of gluten-free Cheerios that were taken from different manufacturing facilities and lots. Under current regulations, the statement "gluten-free" is prohibited on any food products that contain gluten levels above 20 parts per million. The FDA tests indicated that some samples of the cereal contained levels as high as 43 ppm. The suit alleges that supposedly gluten-free wheat was cross contaminated with ordinary wheat at one of General Mills' processing facilities. General Mills, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, had launched an advertising campaign in September for "gluten-free" Cheerios, placing the designation prominently on the product packaging. The suit alleges that this action constitutes deceptive, unfair and false advertising and merchandising practices as well as violations under California's Sherman Law restricting "unlawful" business acts. In a public statement announcing the October recall, Jim Murphy, senior vice president and president of the cereal division, at General Mills, stated "We've worked very hard to ensure our products are gluten-free" but "today we must acknowledge that we failed to meet that commitment for a time, and we're recalling all affected products as a result." General Mills officials have not returned phone calls from Legal Newsline nor have they responded to email requests for an interview regarding the case. General Mills has been involved in numerous legal scrapes over recent years. In 2009, the company was warned by the FDA about claims relating to the cholesterol-lowering effects of Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal. General Mills was compelled to clarify labeling language used with supposed health claims, and the FDA did not pursue further action. In 2013, it reached an $8.5 million settlement over alleged misstated health claims and the deceptive advertising of YoPlus probiotic yogurt. In that agreement, plaintiffs were awarded $4 for each unit of the product they purchased. Another Yoplait yogurt class-action suit was dismissed in Minnesota late in 2012, after a federal judge ruled that the case should be settled by the FDA. In that case, according to Mr. McGarity, "The court was holding that the common law suit was pre-empted by FDA labeling approval" with "the theory being that we have a national market [but] if we have individual juries determining what should be on the label, we will have a cacophony of different things on labels" in different state and local markets. "Any company who markets nationally wouldn't know what to put on the label" if labeling decisions were left to individual state juries, he said. Mr. McGarity cautions, however, that the "FDA is a small agency with a whole lot to do" and we should be "fairly dubious" about judicial holdings that the agency is "doing such a great job that it should preempt the common law." Citing concerns about the agency's lack of funding, he added that "a person's right to sue a company that is misleading him ought not easily be preempted by the operations of an agency that doesn't have the resources to do a perfect job". Thus far, attorneys for Haddix haven't disclosed what damages they are seeking in the suit. In a similar case filed Nov. 18 in New York, attorneys for General Mills unveiled a settlement proposal of $3.48 per unit, the equivalent value of the price of the recalled Cheerios. If agreed upon, the settlement would exceed $6.2 million. GOPRO INC: Slapped with Class Suit for Misleading Investors ----------------------------------------------------------- Usman Farooq, writing for Bidness Etc., reports that GoPro Inc. stock has lost over 36% in 2016, pulled down by slowing Chinese economy, guidance cuts, layoffs, and lower-than-expected camera sales. The action camera maker is seeing its worst days since it launched Hero 4 Session last year, which failed to make a mark in the market. To top it all off, an investor slapped the company with a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed at a California federal court, claims that the management deceived investors about weak Hero 4 Session sales and failed to factor this weakness in the fourth quarter fiscal year 2015 (4QFY15) guidance. GoPro said that it was cutting its 4Q guidance due to weaker-than-expected camera sales, causing the stock price to tumble more than 14%. The complaint, lodged by Joseph Bodri, seeks class action status and alleges that the company and certain executives violated federal securities laws. The lawsuit concerns anyone who bought GoPro shares between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016. The latest development adds to GoPro's lawsuit worries. In 2015, GoPro was sued by Polaroid camera maker, C&A Marketing Inc., who claimed that the company copied the design of its cube camera for Hero 4 Session. These near-term concerns have caused the stock price to drop to $11, down 88% from October 2014 high of $93.85. Once a darling of the Street, GoPro could see further weakening in its stock if the outcome of these lawsuits is not in its favor. GUITAR CENTER: Employees Forced to Relinquish Right to Sue ---------------------------------------------------------- Greg Kennelty, writing for Metal Injection, reports that last 2015 produced some particularly bad news for Guitar Center, mainly an editorial from a financial advisor explaining why the chain was doomed and investors pulling out $11 million from the company. Now the company is back in the news and, you guessed it, it's not all sunshine and happiness again. According to several reports, Guitar Center is forcing its employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements saying employees cannot sue the company. The agreement, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, forces employees to relinquish their rights to sue the company in class action lawsuits over wage violations, workplace discrimination and unjust firings, among other disputes. The report says arbitration agreements have become highly controversial for the way they hamstring employees and weaken their legal power. By sending disputes to an arbitrator, they force workers to pursue their claims individually and outside of court, preempting any collective action. And even though they're supposed to be neutral third parties, arbitrators are often cozy with the companies that workers are squaring off with, as The New York Times detailed in a recent series. According to The Huffington Post, the agreement does state that employees can seek unemployment and workers' compensation, but no lawsuits against the company can be filed against the corporation if they violate any federal, state or local law. Guitar Center declined to comment on the original article, says the report. GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that officers and directors of GW Pharmaceuticals plc (NASDAQGM: GWPH) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016, by making materially false and misleading statements about GW Pharmaceuticals' business prospects. GW Pharmaceuticals plc, a biopharmaceutical company, together with its subsidiaries, engages in discovering, developing, and commercializing cannabinoid prescription medicines. GW Pharmaceuticals Accused of Failing to Implement Adequate Internal Controls According to the complaint, GW Pharmaceuticals filed a Form 20-F and several Forms 6-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2014 and 2015, attesting to the accuracy of the financial information and affirming that any material changes to the company's internal controls over financial reporting were disclosed. However, the complaint alleges these statements were false because the company failed to disclose that it lacked effective internal financial controls, as well as effective controls over completeness and valuation of clinical trial accruals. On December 7, 2015, GW Pharmaceuticals disclosed in its annual report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that its internal financial controls were not effective as of September 30, 2015. The company stated that if the statements were prepared improperly, it would be required to restate its financial statements, which could result in a loss of investor confidence and a decline in the price of its American Depository Shares. The Form further stated that it lacked sufficient controls to ensure completeness of clinical trial accruals in connection with contractual progress payment liabilities. Then, on January 10, 2016, an article in The Sunday Times disclosed that GW Pharmaceuticals' management had determined that it lacked effective controls over the completeness and valuation of clinical trial accruals. On this news, GW Pharmaceuticals stock fell $3.55 per share, or nearly 6%, to close at $56.31 per share on January 11, 2016. GW Pharmaceuticals Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Still Defending Suits Related to NextEra Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. are defending class action lawsuits related to the merger agreement with NextEra Energy, Inc., Hawaiian Electric said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement, eight purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii by alleged stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15, 2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642- 12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v. Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action). On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action, and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions and to appoint co-lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on this motion on February 13, 2015 and granted consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel on March 6, 2015. On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action filed an amended complaint, and added J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JP Morgan), which was HEI's financial advisor for the Merger, as a defendant. On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action moved for limited expedited discovery. After limited discovery, the parties in the consolidated state action stipulated and the Court ordered that the deadline for defendants to respond to the amended complaint is extended indefinitely. On April 30, 2015, the Court consolidated the seven state actions under the caption, In re Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases. On January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily dismissed. Thereafter, the same alleged stockholder plaintiff filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuit is captioned as Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. et al., 15-cv-00029-JMS-KSC (January 27, 2015) (the Cohn Federal Action). On May 28, 2015, the parties agreed to stay the Cohen Federal Action pending the outcome of the consolidated state action. The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI, NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the consolidated state action also allege that JP Morgan had a conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE. The consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI board of directors violated its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. In addition, the Cohn Federal Action alleges that the HEI board of directors violated its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations of the complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. HEALTH AND HOSPITAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Heather Walker, Elizabeth Fisher, and Candace Hash, on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated v. The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Case No. 1:15-cv-01978-JMS- TAB (S.D. Ind., December 16, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County is a municipal corporation that maintains offices and conducts business within the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan C. Fox, Esq. Craig M. Williams, Esq. Ryan P. Sink, Esq. FOX WILLIAMS & SINK, LLC 8465 Keystone Crossing, Suite 250 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 254-8500 Facsimile: (844) 273-6464 E-mail: cwilliams@fwslegal.com rfox@fwslegal.com rsink@fwslegal.com HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a lawsuit alleging violations of the Junk Fax Prevention Act has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The Company also disclosed that on December 22, 2014, Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount. On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been joined as a party in the California Matter. "We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend these actions," the Company said. HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Cato Action Paid by Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the case, Cato Capital, LLC v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 9-549-GMS, no Company funds were used to pay the settlement, which was paid from the Company's insurance coverage. On December 21, 2012, a putative federal securities class action Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of the Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 14, 2013, the Court appointed Hemispherx Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4. Pursuant to the Court's March 29, 2013 scheduling order, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and in its Amended Complaint, dropped Thomas K. Equels and Charles T. Bernhardt as Defendants and added David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne Pambianchi as Defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges an expanded Class Period of March 14, 2012 to December 20, 2012, which period encompasses statements made in the Company's 2011 Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2012, and at the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting on December 20, 2012. On July 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss is September 17, 2013, and Defendants filed their reply brief on October 17, 2013. On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on February 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for completion of all fact discovery. On February 25, 2014, defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the Amended Compliant. Also on February 25, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which will govern all confidential documents produced in discovery. After conducting significant fact discovery, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims on December 31, 2014. However, the settlement is subject to the Court's issuance of an order finally approving the terms of the parties' settlement agreement in all material respects. On March 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion with the Court seeking an order, inter alia, granting preliminary approval of their settlement agreement, preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes, and setting a date for a final settlement hearing. On April 8, 2015, the Court granted the parties' joint motion, and entered an Order preliminarily approving the parties' settlement, preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes, directing issuance of notice, and scheduling the final approval hearing for July 22, 2015. On July 22, 2015, the Court held the final approval hearing to determine whether the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and should be approved, and on the same date entered an Order granting final approval of the parties' settlement. No Company funds were used to pay the settlement, which was paid from the Company's insurance coverage. The settlement did not contain any admission of fault or wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any of the individual defendants. HESKA CORPORATION: To Defend "Fauley" Junk Fax Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Heska Corporation will defend against a class action lawsuit by Shaun Fauley, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation," the Company said. "We intend to defend the Company vigorously in this matter." HI TECH: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Waterbury, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hi Tech Remodeling, Group, Inc., and Does 1 - 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-02824-L-RBB (S.D. Cal., December 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection with respect to the Defendant's illegal, nationwide telemarketing campaign. Hi Tech Remodeling, Group, Inc. operates a home remodeling company which performs tasks such as installing or fixing roofs, bathroom remodeling, kitchen remodeling, room additions and similar home improvement projects. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. Alanna J. Pearl, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL 555 West Beech Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (800) 836-6531 E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com HOLLISTER CO: Slapped with $5M Suit Over On-Call Shifts Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that retailer Hollister Company (Hollister) has been hit with a California labor lawsuit over policies regarding on-call shifts that many major retailers have already begun to back away from. While there has been no word on whether Hollister will take a similar cue, the lead plaintiff in what has been proposed as a class-action lawsuit is looking for nothing less than $5 million after accusing her former employer of improper compensation. According to court documents, Maria Garcia worked for a year as a sales clerk at Hollister in one of the retailer's Los Angeles stores. One aspect of her job -- and those of other employees -- involved being available for on-call shifts either scheduled in advance, or shifts for which employees were called in on a more impromptu basis. According to Garcia's California labor code lawsuit, employees were required to be available as part of their workweek for two kinds of on-call shifts: a scheduled stand-alone on-call, where employees would be required to either report to the workplace or at the very least call in to see if they were needed that day, or call-in shifts that could be scheduled either immediately before or after an employee's regular shift. In all situations, an employee would have to clear the day to be available for a call-in shift and were prevented from contacting the employer to see if the employee would be needed after all, prior to one hour before the scheduled start of their on-call shift. Here's where Garcia's California labor lawsuit comes in: were an employee to report for a call-in shift, only to be told after the fact that the employee wasn't needed after all, there was oft times no compensation for the employee for his or her time, or so it is alleged. Garcia alleges such lack of compensation is a violation of California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law. "While employees must treat all call-in shifts as mandatory, defendant frequently does not allow employees to work a scheduled call-in shift, thereby depriving the employee of the opportunity to earn wages for the time they have made available to defendant," Garcia says, in her complaint. "Regardless of how many days and hours employees are in fact permitted to work, employees are required to mold their lives around the possibility that they will work each and every call-in shift." Garcia asserts that all too often, employees were not paid. She also asserts in her California labor employment law class action that Hollister did not pay employees who had left the employ of the company in a timely manner, and failed to issue correct wage statements to employees. In addition to monetary compensation, Garcia and those similarly situated are seeking an injunction to force an end to the scheduling practice at Hollister -- a decision made by other large retailers following an inquiry into the practice by the attorney general for the state of New York last spring. Garcia et al want Hollister to end the practice as well. The California and labor law class action is Garcia v. Hollister Company, Case number 2:16-cv-00154, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. HUMANA INC: Accord Reached in Kentucky Suits; Del. Cases Dropped ---------------------------------------------------------------- Humana Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Delawar class actions over the Company's merger with Aetna, Inc., have withdrawn the lawsuits pending approval of a settlement reached in the class actions filed in Kentucky court. On July 2, 2015, Humana entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Aetna Inc. and certain wholly owned subsidiaries of Aetna Inc., which sets forth the terms and conditions under which Humana will merge with, and become a wholly owned subsidiary of Aetna. In connection with the Merger, three putative class action complaints were filed by purported Humana stockholders challenging the Merger, two in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaints are captioned Solak v. Broussard et al., Civ. Act. No. 15CI03374 (Kentucky state court), Litwin v. Broussard et al., Civ. Act. No. 15CI04054 (Kentucky state court) and Scott v. Humana Inc. et al., C.A. No. 11323-VCL (Delaware state court). The complaints name as defendants each member of Humana's board of directors, Aetna, and, in the case of the Delaware complaint, Humana. "The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the individual members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to our stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement, approving the mergers as contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Humana to our stockholders, and that Aetna, and, in the case of the Delaware complaint, Humana aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties," the Company said. "In addition, the complaints allege that the merger undervalues Humana, that the process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement was flawed, that the members of our board of directors improperly placed their own financial interests ahead of those of our stockholders, and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement improperly favor Aetna and impede a potential alternative transaction. Among other remedies, the complaints seek equitable relief rescinding the Merger Agreement and enjoining the defendants from completing the mergers as well as costs and attorneys' fees. We refer to all these cases collectively in this report as the Merger Litigation." On August 20, 2015, the parties in the Kentucky state cases filed a stipulation and proposed order with the court to consolidate these cases into a single action captioned In re Humana Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civ. Act. No. 15CI03374. On October 9, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Humana and the other named defendants in the Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding, which we refer to as the MOU, to settle the Merger Litigation. Subject to court approval and further definitive documentation in a stipulation of settlement that will be subject to customary conditions, the MOU resolved the claims brought in the Merger Litigation and provided that Humana would make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed mergers. The MOU further provided for, among other things, dismissal of the Merger Litigation with prejudice and a release and settlement by the purported class of Humana stockholders of all claims against the defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures related to the Merger Agreement. The asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement receives court approval. The foregoing terms and conditions will be defined by the stipulation of settlement, and class members will receive a separate notice describing the settlement terms and their rights in connection with the approval of the settlement. In connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Humana will pay or cause to be paid any court awarded attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that a court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. Because the MOU contemplates that the Kentucky court will be asked to approve the settlement, the plaintiffs have already withdrawn the Delaware case. IDI INC: Florida Court Dismissed "Heim" Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the a Florida court has dismissed the case, Garrett Heim v. IDI, Inc., et al. On or about July 22, 2015, IDI, Inc., Peter W.H. Tan, Derek Dubner, and Jacky Wang were named as defendants in a class action complaint alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws, captioned Garrett Heim v. IDI, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-CV- 81019-BB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On September 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the securities class action lawsuit. This action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff with no payment made to plaintiff or plaintiff's attorneys. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: "Tawil" Suit Transferred to New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Tawil v. Illinois Tool Works Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-Cv-06808, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-08747-FLW- LHG to the Proceeding. Plaintiff bought and installed Rain-X windshield washer fluid that was unsuitable for their vehicles, leading to damaged electronic windshield washer fluid sensors requiring expensive repairs. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the New Jersey Products Liability Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an injunction barring Defendants from marketing and selling Rain-X for use in all vehicles; and punitive. Illinois Tool Works manufactures and sells industrial products and equipment worldwide. It operates through seven segments: Automotive OEM; Test & Measurement and Electronics; Food Equipment; Polymers & Fluids; Welding; Construction Products; and Specialty Products. The Automotive OEM segment produces components and fasteners for automotive-related applications. The company is based in Glenview, Illinois. South/Win engages in the manufacture and distribution of car care products for consumer and commercial use. It offers windshield washer fluids, RV and marine antifreeze products, auto appearance products, marine appearance products, pressure washer cleaning chemicals, and more. The company also provides industrial and private label products, and is based in Reidsville, North Carolina. The Defendants manufacture, distribute, and promote Rain-X windshield washer fluid for use in motor vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981 4800 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq Shanon J Carson, Esq BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3038 Facsimile: (215) 875 4636 E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net The Defendants are represented by: B. John Pendleton , Jr. James Vincent Noblett, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120 Short Hills, NJ 07078-2704 Telephone: (973) 520 2561 Facsimile: (973) 520 2581 E-mail: John.Pendleton@dlapiper.com james.noblett@dlapiper.com INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks Continue in "Makover" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ineedmd Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company and its board of directors are currently involved in litigation against Michael E. Makover, M.D. ("Makover"). On April 30, 2015, Makover filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging claims including breaches of fiduciary duties. On October 29, 2015, by agreement of the parties, the class action complaint was withdrawn and a first amended verified complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware with Makover as the sole plaintiff. As of the date of the Form 10-Q Report, the Company and Makover are continuing good faith settlement discussions to work towards an amicable resolution of this matter. INNOVATIVE FOOD: "Aviles" Calif. Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- On October 28, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles Division, entitled Jerry Aviles v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al., Case No. BC 599373. Fresh Diet is a subsidiary of publicly traded Innovative Food Holdings, Inc. The complaint alleged purported violations of the California Automatic Renewal Law, accusing Fresh Diet of offering materials that do not contain in a prominent place appropriate language relating to automatic renewal of the program they purchased, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Sec. 17603, et al. Court records show that Fresh Diet moved to dismiss this class action case and the Court did so on Jan. 6, 2016. ISORAY INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against a securities class action complaint. An amended class action complaint has been filed in the case. On May 22, 2015, a class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court against IsoRay, Inc., its CEO/Chairman and its CFO. The complaint related to a press release issued by the Company on May 20, 2015 and is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of IsoRay, Inc. common stock from May 20, 2015 through and including May 21, 2015. On October 16, 2015, an amended class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in U.S District Court for Eastern District of Washington against IsoRay, Inc. and its CEO/Chairman. The class period remains unchanged at 27 hours and its CFO was dropped as a defendant. The Company had until December 15, 2015 to respond to the amended complaint. The complaint, as amended, asserts that the purchasers were misled by the press release, and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. "We cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings or an estimate of damages, if any. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously," the Company said. JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Collie" Suit Over Invokana(R) Drug ----------------------------------------------------------- Luana Jean Collie v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, et al., Case No. 15:-15-cv-603066 (S.D. Ala., December 15, 2015) arises from the injuries to the Plaintiff as a proximate result of taking the prescription drug Invokana(R), also known as canagliflozin. Invokana (canafgliflozin) is a prescription drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Janssen Research & Development, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company with a principal place of business at 920 Route 202, Raritan NJ 08869. The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Kristian W. Rasmussen, Esq. Richard A. Wright, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue, Ste. 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 E-mail: rwright@corywatson.com - and - Michael B. Lynch, Esq. Amy E. German, Esq. THE MICHAEL BRADY LYNCH FIRM 127 West Fairbanks Ave., Suite 528 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (877) 513-9517 Facsimile: (321) 972-3568 E-mail: Michael@mblynchfirm.com JC FODALE: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Meador, Stephen Allen, Dallas Thompson and Paul Whitworth v. JC Fodale Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01124 (W.D. Tex., December 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. JC Fodale Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services provider, which provides containment berms, vacuum trucks, wire line/TCP services, mixing plants, laydown machines, frac tanks, gas busters, construction services and 24-hour emergency response. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com JETS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action for $324,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- John C. Ensslin, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that in a move that could send a signal to teams in other NFL cities, the Jets have agreed to pay nearly $324,000 to cheerleaders to settle a class-action lawsuit in which women claimed they were cheated out of wages, ordered to practices but not paid and forced to cover work-related expenses, like makeup, hair care and transportation. The lawsuit, settled on Jan. 22 in state Superior Court in Bergen County, is one of several filed against NFL teams as the league faces pressure from lawmakers in New Jersey and other states to pay cheerleaders according to labor laws. The settlement comes as the National Football League is contending with broader public relations fights over concussions and lawsuits brought by former players. It also occurs at a time when the NFL has toughened its domestic violence policy after Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized in August 2014 for his handling of an incident in an Atlantic City hotel in which a surveillance camera captured player Ray Rice knocking his fiancee unconscious in an elevator. The 52 current and former cheerleaders covered in the Bergen County case were all members of the squad known as The Flight Crew during the 2012 and 2013 seasons. The lawsuit was filed in August 2014 by a former cheerleader identified only as "Krystal C." in the court documents. Her lawyer, Patricia V. Pierce, said none of the women in the class action were identified by name in the lawsuit to protect them from other problems, including stalkers. According to Ms. Pierce, the women were paid $150 per game and issued cheerleader uniforms but were not paid for other work. She said their compensation did not include time spent learning cheerleader routines and practicing them. She said they were not reimbursed for expenses they incurred to conform to the image required of the cheerleading squad. For example, all the cheerleaders were required to have straight hair, Pierce said. So Krystal, who has naturally curly hair, had to have hers straightened. Ms. Pierce said the team did not pay for time and cost of travel to and from home games. The squad did not attend road games, she said. "When you figure all that up, they were making less than minimum wage," Ms. Pierce said. She said the Jets changed their employment practices with cheerleaders after Krystal filed the suit. Jets spokesman Bruce Speight referred to a statement drafted when the two sides first reached a preliminary agreement to settle the case in August. "The Jets deny the claims and the parties have agreed to a settlement to avoid the expense, time and distraction of litigation," the statement read. A spokesman for the team could not be reached for comment. As part of the settlement, Jets made no admission of "any liability of wrongdoing whatsoever." Under the terms of the agreement, the women will receive $2,559 to $5,913 each, depending upon whether they worked one or both seasons and whether they took part in 2012 and 2013 photo shoots for the Jets' annual Flight Crew calendars. Krystal also was awarded an additional $5,000 for her role in initiating the class action lawsuit. All told, the 52 women will receive $205,433. Their lawyers will be paid about $112,000 in fees and expenses. An additional $6,500 will go to a claims administrator. The lawsuit is part of a larger trend involving current and former cheerleaders contesting the terms of their compensation. According to an April 2014 story in the Los Angeles Times, former cheerleaders for the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills have filed lawsuits against the teams alleging they were owed compensation for unpaid work. Earlier in January, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, sponsored a bill that would extend employment protections normally afforded under New Jersey law to cheerleaders affiliated with professional sports teams. "This would hopefully start calling attention to how these women . . . are underpaid and not protected," she said. Sen. Weinberg said she introduced the bill at the request of Assemblywoman Rebecca Seawright, D-N.Y., who along with several other lawmakers has co-sponsored a bill pending in Albany. The New Jersey bill would require that cheerleaders are covered by laws governing minimum wage and hours, workers' compensation, unemployment and temporary disability benefits. Sen. Weinberg said she was unaware of any other professional sports teams in New Jersey that have cheerleaders. The Giants do not have a cheerleading squad. When asked about the pending legislation in New Jersey and New York, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said, "We expect clubs to comply with federal, state and local wage laws." Ms. Pierce said similar legislation had been introduced in California. "I think it's long overdue," Ms. Pierce said. KEEPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that exotic dancers who perform at the Keepers Gentlemen's Club in Milford claim they haven't been paid fairly. They say they haven't received minimum wage and aren't even allowed to keep all the tips customers give them. The women took their complaint to the state court system last year, but a judge recently concluded they will have to fight for fair wages before an arbitrator instead. While the case may involve seminude performers, it focuses on two legal issues that have been very much in the employment law mainstream in recent years: workers questioning whether they are being improperly classified as independent contractors instead of full-fledged employees; and contract clauses requiring worker complaints to be adjudicated through arbitration rather than litigated in court. Six women brought a lawsuit against Keepers Inc. and its president and director, Joseph Regensburger, in Superior Court in New Haven in March 2015. The plaintiffs -- Crystal Horrocks of New Haven, Yaritza Reyes of New York, Dina Danielle Caviello of Wolcott, Jacquelyne Green of Bristol, Sugeily Ortiz of Stratford and Zuleyma Bella Lopez of Branford -- claim violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The women claim that club management hasn't paid them minimum wage for the hours they have worked and failed to pay them time-and-a-half for overtime. "The defendants have unjustly and unlawfully enriched themselves at the expense of their employees," their lawsuit claims. Stephen Bellis of the Pellegrino Law Firm in New Haven, who represents the gentleman's club, filed a motion seeking a stay of the proceedings until arbitration could take place. According to Mr. Bellis' motion, the women signed agreements to use binding arbitration in any dispute with the club based on state or federal statute, and also signed "employment lease agreements" acknowledging they are independent contractors rather than full- fledged employees. The plaintiffs had claimed any entertainment lease agreement should be void because it sought to implement an allegedly "illegal employment scheme." Disc Jockey Fee In a 14-page decision issued Jan. 4, Superior Court Judge Robin Wilson concluded the women's wage claims fall within the scope of an arbitration agreement and should be decided by an arbitrator. Wilson granted the defendants' motion for a stay of the court proceedings. "We feel Judge Wilson made the correct decision," Mr. Bellis said. "There were contracts signed by the entertainers, in which they agreed to go to arbitration in the case of any dispute." Mr. Bellis said on Jan. 25 he is in the process of conferring with attorneys to decide on an arbitrator and schedule arbitration hearings. He said he expects any hearings to occur within the next couple of months. A. Paul Spinella of Spinella & Associates of Hartford, who represents most of the dancers, did not immediately comment. But Hartford attorney Kenneth Krayeske, who represents Ms. Caviello, said the women sought to bring the court action on behalf of a class of exotic dancers. With the case going before an arbitrator, only the women involved in the complaint may secure damages. "I hope we get many more women in this industry to stand up," Mr. Krayeske said. In their objection to the defendants' motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote, "This is not a new issue for courts across the country, as dancers in state after state have won verdicts and arbitration awards stating they are employees and therefore eligible for the benefits of employment, including minimum wage and overtime. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have found the entertainer lease agreements, like the ones at issue in this case, to be unjust and thus have voided them." The women claim the exotic, or topless, dance club in Milford brings in annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 a year. The women stated in their lawsuit that they performed on stage, in common areas and in semiprivate rooms, and that they would earn tips from customers. They worked at the club from about 2011 to 2014, court documents show. In general, the women claimed violations of the FLSA, citing unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and unlawful deduction from wages. According to their lawsuit, the club's management improperly made them share their tips and gratuities. They had to pay a "house fee" as a condition of employment, and had to pay a fee to the disc jockey on the night they worked, the lawsuit alleged. "You can't make somebody pay to work," Mr. Krayeske said. "It is astonishing that this is allowed to happen. It is an exploitive business model. These club owners have all the bargaining power. They say the dancers can't work there unless they sign a contract, and then they have to sign away all their rights." Through their lawsuit, the women sought all lost wages and economic benefits, costs and attorney fees, treble damages for failure to pay wages, compensatory damages and interest. "The plaintiffs, who have no real opportunities to profit from the success of the defendants' business, have depended on customers' tips and gratuities, which make their opportunities for profit or loss a function of how much money customers have and are willing to spend," their complaint states. Their lawsuit claims the women were misclassified by the club as "independent contractors," even though club management controlled their work schedule, conduct, dress, songs they danced to and rates they charged for dances. Their litigation claims the misclassification meant they weren't able to receive the benefits associated with being full-fledged employees, such as workers' compensation or unemployment benefits, if they were to lose their jobs. The women still can pursue their FLSA allegations, but they have to go through an arbitrator, under Wilson's ruling. "The arbitration agreement provides that the scope of the arbitrator's authority is to decide any and all claims, state or federal, that arise between the plaintiffs and the defendants," the judge wrote. "The claim that the entertainment lease agreement violates state and federal employment laws, as well as public policy considerations, falls within the arbitration agreement's 'any and all controversies' requirement." Mr. Krayeske noted other exotic dancers have gotten remuneration through arbitration. In 2013, in D'Antuono v. C & G of Groton, an arbitrator found that two exotic dancers who worked at the Gold Club in Groton were employees who should have been paid wages. The arbitrator in that case awarded one woman $58,757 and the other $69,738. LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER: Inmate May File Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the captioned case GLENN VERSER, No. N-72074, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN DUNCAN, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 3:15-cv-01263-SMY, (S.D. Ill.), District Judge Staci M. Yandle granted Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint and dismissed the newly amended complaint as to Count 4 and Defendant Heather Cecil without prejudice. Glenn Verser was recently released from prison. At all times relevant to this case, he was incarcerated at the Lawrence Correctional Center in Sumner, Illinois. Proceeding pro se, Verser brought this civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Although the original complaint underwent a preliminary review, Plaintiff Verser (while incarcerated) filed a proposed amended complaint, which the Court construes as a motion for leave to amend. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Plaintiff may amend the complaint without the Court's permission; accordingly, the motion to amend will be granted. Verser generally alleges his constitutional rights were violated during a strip search and cell shakedown conducted by the Orange Crush Tactical Team at Lawrence on July 10, 2014. Verser has named as defendants 69 Illinois Department of Corrections employees and "Unknown Members of the Tactical Team Known as the Orange Crush." Relative to the July 10, 2014 search effort, Plaintiff claims some defendants conducted the search in a humiliating manner, violated the Prison Rape Elimination Act, single-cuffed Plaintiff behind his back despite knowing Plaintiff had a medical permit prohibiting him being cuffed in that fashion, physically assaulted him, and ignored his medical needs. Other defendants allegedly failed to intervene to prevent those actions. "All defendants" were purportedly informed of Plaintiff's medical permit and ignored his "serious medical needs." Plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint. In her Memorandum and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at http://is.gd/slOE1wfrom Leagle.com, Judge Yandle granted Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. The Court dismissed without prejudice with respect to the newly amended complaint, Count 4 and Defendant Heather Cecil and with respect Counts 1-3 of the newly amended complaint shall proceed. Glenn Verser, Plaintiff, Pro Se LECOM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Benion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Benion, Zachary Goodgall, Damon Franklin, Leslie Morgan, and all others similarly situated v. Lecom Communications, Inc., and Lecom, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-14367-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich., December 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide telecommunications services to businesses and individuals, and serve as a subcontractor for the national cable service company Comcast. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Peter M. Delano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 - 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com pdelano@llrlaw.com - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 LINKEDIN: Judge Asked to Approve $13-Mil. Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for The Daily Online, reports that more than half a million LinkedIn members will receive $16 each as part of the company's settlement of a lawsuit alleging it misappropriated users' names by sending email invitations to their friends. Those figures were revealed in new court papers asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California to grant final approval to the $13 million settlement. The deal calls for LinkedIn to distribute at least $9 million of the fund to members who claim their identities were wrongly used by LinkedIn. Class counsel says in a motion that the settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate." They add that the settlement's monetary terms are "particularly impressive in light of other recent class action settlements in the area of digital privacy." In the last several years, Web companies including Google and Facebook have settled other privacy cases by agreeing to create a fund that makes payments to nonprofits, but not to individual users who were affected by the alleged lapses. The papers state that around 550,000 users have submitted claims to the company. Assuming they're valid, LinkedIn will end up paying around $16 to each claimant. The lawyers who brought the case could receive more than $3 million in attorneys' fees. If accepted by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California, the deal will resolve a battle dating to September of 2013, when a group of LinkedIn users accused the company of violating the federal wiretap law by "hacking" into their email accounts, in order to harvest their friends' addresses. The users -- including a former manager of international advertising sales for The New York Times -- also alleged that LinkedIn misappropriated their names and identities by sending a series of three email invitations to their friends. While the users acknowledged that the company asked them for permission to grow their networks, they argued that the service made only "cryptic disclosures" before harvesting email addresses and sending invitations. Koh narrowed the case in 2014, when she rejected the hacking claim on the grounds that the users agreed to transmit an initial email invitation to their friends. But she allowed the consumers to proceed with claims regarding the two follow-up emails. LinkedIn subsequently argued that it had a free-speech right to send those follow-up emails, on the theory that the service helps people to communicate with each other. In November of 2014 Koh rejected that argument; soon after that decision, LinkedIn and the consumers agreed to resolve the case out of court. The settlement also requires LinkedIn to revise some of its prior practices. Among others, LinkedIn will change the disclosures it makes when asking people to grow their networks via the automated "Add Connections" feature. Now, the company will explicitly state that its "Add Connections" tool imports people's address books. LinkedIn also will let people who use Add Connections wield more control over which contacts receive the automated invitations and follow-up emails. Class counsel wrote that those new obligations "are designed to address, remedy, and prospectively prevent the fundamental harms that gave rise to this litigation." LOGMEIN INC: Wins Dismissal of Customer Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that software provider LogMeIn on Jan. 27 won summary judgment and dismissal of federal class action claims in Fresno, Calif. that it did not properly inform customers that its free remote-access app might be replaced by a paid-for app. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston found that lead plaintiff Darren Handy was unable to refute LogMeIn's evidence that it did inform users that it could terminate its LogMeIn Free app. LogMeIn at one point provided two products that gave customers remote access to desktop computers through a virtual private network. LogMeIn Free, the free app, allowed access from another laptop or desktop computer, while its paid app, Ignition, allowed access from a tablet or smartphone. Handy said he installed LogMeIn Free in 2009 and then bought Ignition for $29.99 a year later, thinking it was a premium supplement to LogMeInFree. In early 2014, LogMeIn introduced a third product, LogMeIn Pro, which required a subscription and annual fee. The company posted on its website that it was planning to gradually migrate users of Ignition and the free app to the new product, and said it would unify its portfolio of free and premium remote access products into the paid-only offering. The LogMeIn Free app was discontinued, but the Ignition app continued to work. Handy claimed that Ignition and LogMeIn Free were so inextricably intertwined that consumers would only use Ignition in tandem with LogMeIn Free, so the company effectively discontinued both apps. Thurston disagreed, pointing out that Handy used LogMeIn Free for more than a year before buying Ignition, then used Ignition for more than a year after LogMeIn Free was discontinued. "The fact that plaintiff wanted to use both services and did so does not establish that defendant's actions as to one product constituted an action as to the other. The fact that some other users wanted to use - and did use - both products and assumed that they were meant to do so, proves nothing," Thurston wrote. Because the products were not intertwined, there was no need for LogMeIn to remind Handy when he purchased Ignition that LogMeIn Free could be terminated, the judge said, noting that LogMeIn Free's terms and conditions stated that the app could be terminated. "The failure of a consumer to read the terms and conditions before accepting them is insufficient to avoid the contract," Thurston wrote. Nor did she buy Handy's false advertising claim based on LogMeIn's statement on its website that it was going to "gradually" phase out Ignition as it moved to LogMeIn Pro. Handy claimed that the company never actually discontinued Ignition and that the statement was intended to induce customers to pay for the new app. But Thurston said that though Ignition continues to work, this does not show that LogMeIn did not intend, or does not intend, to discontinue Ignition at some point. She added that the statement did not trick Handy, since he did not buy a subscription as a result. Except for a few weeks, he continued to use the service uninterrupted throughout 2014 and 2015, Thurston said. "While he may be outraged by what he feels occurred to others, the court is not clear why he believes that this outrage makes him aggrieved such that he can vindicate this grievance in this litigation," Thurston wrote, granting summary judgment and closing the case. LogMeIn declined to comment on the case and an attorney for Handy did not return a request for comment. The case captioned, DARREN HANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOGMEIN, INC., Defendant. Case No.: 1:14-cv-01355-JLT (E.D. Cal.). LOKEY OLDSMOBILE: "Dettloff" Suit Goes to Middle Dist. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Dettloff v. Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-007187-CI, was removed from Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02885-JSM-EAJ to the proceeding. Lokey Oldsmobile retails automobiles. The company offers sale of new and used automobiles and their parts and services. The company is based in Clearwater, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Blair Mendes, Esq. Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus, Esq. James L. Wilkes II, Esq. Joanna M. Greber, Esq. WILKES & MCHUGH, PA 1 N Dale Mabry Hwy, Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33609-2755 Telephone: (813) 873 0026 Facsimile: (813) 286 8820 E-mail: bmendes@wilkesmchugh.com iruiz-carus@wilkesmchugh.com jwilkes@wilkesmchugh.com jgreber@wilkesmchugh.com - and - Marchelle Angelique Wiley, Esq. REISBERG LAW 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1210 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371 9617 Facsimile: (305) 371 9628 E-mail: mwiley@Riesberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Larry Martin Roth, Esq. Samantha Crawford Duke, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA 300 S Orange Ave Ste 1400 PO Box 11873 Orlando, FL 32802-1873 Telephone: (407) 872 7300 Facsimile: (407) 841 2133 E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com sduke@rumberger.com LYFT: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California Out of Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline O'Donovan, writing for Buzz Feed News, reports that drivers suing Lyft as part of a class action lawsuit in California settled their complaint outside of court on Jan. 26. The $12.25 million settlement does not reclassify the more than 100,000 Lyft drivers in the class as employees, which the attorney in the case, Shannon Liss-Riordan, said she had "hoped for" in her statement. The drivers will continue to be classified as independent contractors, without access to the same benefits and protections of Lyft employees. In an email to Buzz Feed News, Liss-Riordan calculated that drivers who drove more than 30 hours a week in half of the weeks they spent working on Lyft "should get on average more than about $1,000" each. She said the size of this settlement is around 20% of what she would have expected Lyft drivers to be awarded had she won the case. Boston-based attorney Ms. Liss-Riordan has become well-known for her crusade to reclassify contract workers in the on-demand economy as employees. In a statement, she called the settlement a "good resolution," and said, because of an arbitration clause in the Lyft drivers' contracts, it was unlikely her firm would have won the case. "It would have been very difficult if not impossible to achieve global changes at Lyft other than through a settlement agreement," she said. In a separate statement, Lyft's general counsel Kristin Sverchek said the company is "pleased," and committed to building a social safety net for its drivers. Lyft drivers will see some benefits from the settlement going forward. These changes include an update to the company's Terms of Service that will, in theory, make it harder for drivers to get kicked off the platform. "Lyft will only be able to deactivate drivers for one of a list of enumerated reasons, and drivers who are at risk of deactivation will be given notice of this risk and opportunity to cure the shortcoming before deactivation," the statement reads. Drivers who feel they have been wrongfully terminated or unfairly compensated will be able to take those claims to a "neutral arbitrator" -- a process that Lyft will have to pay for. This outcome does not impact the status of the class action suit led by Ms. Liss-Riordan against Uber, which is still slated to be tried on June 20 of this year. Ms. Liss-Riordan explained that, for a variety of reasons including number of drivers and age of the company, a payout to drivers in the case against Uber could be significantly larger if her firm goes on to win at trial. MACY'S INC: Faces Class Action Over "Phantom Pricing Scheme" ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony V. Lupo, Esq. -- anthony.lupo@arentfox.com -- Eva J. Pulliam, Esq. -- eva.pulliam@arentfox.com -- and B. Thorne Maginnis, Esq., of Arent Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that Macy's, Inc. and subsidiary Bloomingdale's, Inc. were recently served with a class action complaint alleging that the retail chains misled consumers with a "phantom pricing scheme" that inflated the savings available on items marked for sale. According to the complaint, the stores listed artificially high "regular" prices on "sale" items, increasing, by comparison, the savings that consumers believed they were receiving. This is the latest of several recent class action lawsuits attacking retail pricing strategies, and it serves as a reminder to retailers nationwide to be careful when using price comparisons. More on the Dispute In 2014, plaintiffs Kristen Haley and Sylvia Thompson made purchases at Macy's stores in California and Florida, respectively. Both claim that they were enticed to make these purchases based on the savings advertised on the items' price tags. For example, Ms. Thompson claims to have purchased a mattress that was advertised as being 50% off of the $5,089 regular price. According to the complaint, however, these items had not been previously offered by Macy's at the regular price. The prices, plaintiffs claim, were "artificially inflated and arbitrary," not reflecting either a bona fide price at which they were previously sold by Macy's or the prevailing market price. Ms. Haley and Ms. Thompson filed suit in the Northern District of California against both Macy's and wholly-owned subsidiary Bloomingdale's, alleging violations of California and Florida unfair competition and false advertising laws. While Ms. Haley and Ms. Thompson say they were misled by price tags at Macy's stores, they claim that Bloomingdale's has engaged, at Macy's direction, in the same pricing scheme. Further, they claim that others have been similarly misled by the companies' prices. In the complaint, they seek to represent a class of "thousands" of Macy's and Bloomingdale's customers who purchased items with discounts that were based on inflated former prices. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment. The Takeaway Advertising items at a discounted price is a common and entirely permissible strategy when done properly. But this case should remind retailers that class action lawyers are focusing their attention on fashion and retail companies' pricing strategies. Other retailers have faced similar scrutiny, with Saks Incorporated recently receiving a class action complaint alleging that the company offered "phantom" savings based on inflated regular prices. In addition, a number of recent lawsuits have focused on the pricing strategies of outlet stores and discount retailers. As discussed in a recent Arent Fox alert, Nordstrom Inc. is currently defending a class action over the prices listed in its Nordstrom Rack outlet stores. Similarly, in June discount retailer Burlington Coat Factory was served with a complaint alleging that the company advertised misleading savings. As these cases show, all retailers should be careful when using price comparisons, ensuring that the goods were previously offered at the higher price for a reasonable period of time. Further, when possible, retailers should conduct regular reviews of "sale" and outlet store prices to better understand if they are compliant with applicable state law, as well as the guidance provided by the Federal Trade Commission and the Council for Better Business Bureaus. MARRONE BIO: Second Amended Complaint Filed on Jan. 11, 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an amended consolidated complaint is to be filed in the consolidated securities class action no later than 60 days after the Company announces the restatement(s) after which defendants will have 60 days to respond. On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014, September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with certain of its current and former officers and directors and others were named as defendants in putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. On February 13, 2015, these actions were consolidated as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE- KJN. On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or traceable to the Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering; (ii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in the Company's June 6, 2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the "Class Action"). In addition to the Company, the initial consolidated complaint names certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors and the Company's independent registered public accounting firm as defendants. The initial consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects, including its financial statements, product revenues and system of internal controls. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The action includes claims for damages, fees and expenses, including an award of attorneys' and experts' fees to the putative class. A Second Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2016, and is available at: https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/03308595657 Marrone Bio Innovations is represented in this litigation by: Judson Earle Lobdell, Esq. Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, Ca 94105 Telephone: 415-268-6717 E-mail: jlobdell@mofo.com the individual defendants are represented by: John V. McDermott, Esq. Jonathan Charles Sandler, Esq. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-223-1100 E-mail: jmcdermott@bhfs.com jsandler@bhfs.com Piper Jaffray & Co. and Roth Capital Partners, LLC, are represented by: Charlene Sachi Shimada, Esq. Lucy Han Wang, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market Street Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 E-mail: charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com lucy.wang@morganlewis.com and Ernst & Young, LLP, is represented by: Elizabeth Dianne Mann, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-229-9500 E-mail: emann@mayerbrown.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hedglin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Panda Hedglin v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15- cv-02614 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lemons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Sharon Lemons v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02611 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Rodriguez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02613 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Stafford" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Stafford v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02615 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Summerville" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ada J. Summerville v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02609-SL (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Swegan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Swegan v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv- 02610 (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of forty 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com MCCORMICK & CO: "Linker" Suit Moved from E.D. Mo. to D.C. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Linker v. Mccormick & Co. Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01340, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02207-ESH to the Proceeding. According to the Complaint, the Defendants allegedly misled and likely deceived reasonable consumers by filling reduced products with 25% less ground black pepper without changing the size of the respective tins. Plaintiff brought this action to rectify the injuries caused by McCormick's unlawful practices, and to enjoin McCormick's ongoing deceptive representations concerning the Reduced Products. McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Keane, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC PO Box 16795 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 240 5278 E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com MCCORMICK & CO: "Pellitteri" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Pellitteri et al. v. Mccormick & Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:15-Cv-81521, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv- 02209-ESH to the proceeding. McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland. MCCORMICK & CO: "Theis" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to Wash. D.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Theis v. Mccormick & Co. Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01228, was transferred from Illinois Southern, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk Assigned Case No. 1:15-cv- 02208-ESH to the proceeding. McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland. MDL 2667: "Moore" Suit Moved to N.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Moore v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05595, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (South Bend). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00606-RLM-CAN to the proceeding. Medical Informatics Engineering provides Web-based software solutions for physician practices and enterprises operating on- site employee health clinics. Its solutions include WebChartNow, pre-configured version of WebChart that enables solo or small practices to create a WebChartNow account over the Internet; WebChart EHR, a Web-based longitudinal patient record to meet the specific workflow requirements and documentation preferences of each practice and each individual clinician; and WebChart Enterprise Health, a suite of electronic health record solutions for employee health clinics, occupational health applications, and corporate health and wellness programs. The company is based Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Moore case is being consolidated with MDL 2667 in re: Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 10, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between May 7 and May 26, 2015. According to plaintiffs, this data breach resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of some 3.9 million individuals whose healthcare providers used electronic medical record services provided by MIE. In its December 10, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Indiana will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Robert L. Miller Jr., United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-Md-02667-RLM-CAN. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Chicago gave preliminary approval on Jan. 26 to a reworked head-injury settlement between thousands of former college athletes and the NCAA that includes a $70 million fund to test for brain trauma. U.S. District Judge John Lee praised the new deal for expanding potential plaintiffs to athletes from sports beyond football, hockey and other contact sports. But he suggested several changes -- most notably ones modifying what would have been a blanket protection for the NCAA from class-action lawsuits over concussions, something the organization may find unacceptable. The core of the agreement remains largely the same. That includes the NCAA creating the fund to test current and former athletes for brain injuries they say they suffered while playing collegiate sports. The tests would gauge the extent of neurological injuries and could establish grounds for individual athletes seeking damages. The NCAA is also required to toughen return-to-play rules after a concussion, and all athletes will take baseline neurological tests to start each year to help doctors determine the severity of any concussion during the season. A new, independent Medical Science Committee will oversee the medical testing. "To the extent that the Settling Plaintiffs and the NCAA are agreeable to these modifications or are otherwise able to address the Court's concerns, preliminary approval of the amended class settlement is granted," Judge Lee wrote in his 53-page ruling. The NCAA admits no wrongdoing in the settlement and has denied understating the dangers of concussions. Its chief legal officer, Donald Remy, issued a cautiously worded statement that did not indicate whether the organization might have concerns about the ruling. "While we are pleased the court has provided a preliminary pathway to provide significant resources for the medical monitoring of student-athletes who may suffer concussion, we are still examining the conditions placed on preliminary approval," he said. Jay Edelson, a Chicago-based attorney for athletes who had long opposed the settlement, said he was pleased with the judge's provisions for scaling back NCAA immunity from future suits. He said he believed the proposal would likely bar national class- action suits but also allow class actions against individual schools or, in some cases, even the NCAA. "So we are thrilled," he said. He said the NCAA might conclude the scaling back of class-action protections is poison pill that forces it to withdraw its backing. The number of athletes who may require testing runs into the tens of thousands. In court filings, the plaintiffs cited NCAA figures that said from 2004 to 2009 alone, 29,225 athletes suffered concussions. Judge Lee on Jan. 26 also ordered the plaintiffs' attorney to begin the process of notifying those who could qualify for settlement benefits. In his December 2014 ruling rejecting the first deal, Judge Lee portrayed it as unclear in sections and potentially underfunded. Among the new elements in the reworked deal was stronger wording mandating that all NCAA member schools must adopt tougher concussion-management and return-to-play guidelines. If they don't follow the NCAA lead, they could lose some of the legal protections from lawsuits. To keep the NCAA from having to hold unwieldy talks with multiple plaintiffs, 10 lawsuits filed from Georgia and South Carolina to Minnesota and Missouri were consolidated into the one case in Chicago, where the first lawsuit was filed in 2011. Combined, the suits identified several dozen athletes by name as having suffered brain trauma. The lead plaintiff was Adrian Arrington, a former safety at Eastern Illinois who said he endured five concussions while playing, some so severe he has said he couldn't recognize his parents afterward. Subsequent headaches, memory loss, seizures and depression made it difficult to work or even care for his children, filings said. He later withdrew his support because of the settlement, singling out provisions that largely shielded the NCAA from class-action suits. Another plaintiff who hasn't withdrawn his support is former Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens. After several concussions, he said he found he could no longer retain what he had just studied. His symptoms became so severe he dropped out of school in 2011, telling his mother: "I feel like a 22-year-old with Alzheimer's." NBTY INC: Appeal in "Lary" Junk Fax Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- NBTY, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an appeal in the case, John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, remains pending. NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class- action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross- claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY, and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014. On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action and that appeal is pending. NV ENERGY: Net Metering Program Spurs Class-Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Meyers, writing for Clean Technica, reports that NV Energy, the Nevada utility benefiting most from recent net metering changes made by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, will now be a defendant in a class-action lawsuit filed by two individual PV system owners. The two plaintiffs, John Bamforth and Stanley Schone, argue that they would never have invested in their PV systems had they known Nevada's net metering program would be scaled back as dramatically as it has been since December 23, 2015. At the end of 2015 the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC) voted in favor of a plan reducing payments made by NV Energy under its net metering program. The decision has not only caused outrage among more than 16,000 residential solar system owners in the state, it spurred the well- covered employee layoffs and departure of leading US installers SolarCity and Sunrun. The departure of these two companies followed an August exit of Vivint Solar. As reported by the Las Vegas Sun, the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday, alleges NV Energy, which is regulated by the NPUC, gave the three-member panel false or incomplete information as it considered the new rates. PV Tech writes, the class-action lawsuit alleges NV Energy conspired to "unlawfully reduce the incentives provided via the Solar Program, increasing base rates or service charges only for solar customers in order to reduce competition and increase their own revenues." It said the two plaintiffs were seeking fiscal compensation because they had invested in "expensive solar power systems that do not provide the promised rebates, discounts and rates." According to Las Vegas Sun reporter Daniel Rothberg, a number of groups, including the state's Bureau of Consumer Protection, which represents ratepayers in matters before the commission, are asking the panel to revisit its decision. This class-action lawsuit stands as the first attempt to challenge the NPUC decision in court. NV ENERGY: New Proposal to Customers May Moot Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Nevada's largest utility has offered to grandfather net-metering rates for customers, as solar companies flee the state and a class action challenges new rates that eliminate discounts. "This grandfathering proposal is being offered in recognition of NV Energy's desire to treat all customers, including those who had previously made a decision to install rooftop solar, fairly," NV Energy President and CEO Paul Caudill said. The utility proposes allowing its net-energy-metering customers to continue under old rules for up to 20 years, and said it will submit its new grandfathered rate proposal to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission on Feb. 1. Net metering allows customers who generate their own energy via solar power to feed electricity back to the grid, and gives customers a discount based on the amount of electricity added to the grid, according to the Solar Industries Association. Nevada is among several states that are revising net-metering rates, mostly because of the rapid adoption of solar power and utilities reaching pre-set limits on net-metering customers, according to Green Tech Media. "Some states are tapping the brakes for solar by undermining this key policy or adding new fees and charges on solar customers," N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center analyst Benjamin Inskeep said in the center's recently published nationwide report, "The 50 States of Solar : A Quarterly Look at America's Fast-Evolving Distributed Solar Policy Conversation." Inskeep said 27 states are reviewing rates for solar energy, and federal tax breaks and other incentives to adopt solar power are scheduled to expire this year. "These types of policy changes could hold back the spread of clean, locally produced energy," Inskeep said. In Nevada, net-metering customers received a rate discount via the state's Excess Energy Credit, which is based on the kilowatt hours of electricity received by NV Energy. Net-metering customers stopped getting credits on Jan. 1, but NV energy said it will apply banked credits until they are used up. Nevada's net-metering rate change comes on the heels of NV Energy's application to produce more solar energy at a facility about 25 miles northeast of Las Vegas near the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Advocates for Nevada's solar industry sought a stay of the new net-metering rates, but the Nevada Public Utilities Commission on Jan. 13 denied it, saying only 2% of Nevada residents use solar power. The commission held a day-long public hearing on Jan. 12, during which some 500 residential customers showed up to protest the new rates. In the wake of the rate changes, several solar companies already have laid off workers and announced plans to leave the state. "This is a very difficult decision, but Governor [Brian] Sandoval and his [Public Utilities Commission] leave us no choice," SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive said on Dec. 23. He added: "The people of Nevada have consistently chosen solar, but . . . their state government decided to end customer choice, damage the state's economy, and jeopardize thousands of jobs." Rive said Sandoval and Nevada's Office of Economic Development helped bring solar power giant SolarCity to the Silver State in 2013 and encouraged the company to create new jobs, which it did by hiring 2,000 local workers in two years. The state's rooftop solar industry thrived in 2014, posting the most solar jobs per-capita in the nation, Rive said. SolarCity was the largest solar power employer. "Now, in what amounts to a massive bait-and-switch for the local solar industry and its customers . . . the governor's [Public Utilities Commission] has effectively shut down the rooftop solar industry and taken the extraordinary step to punish over 12,000 existing solar customers, including schools, with exorbitant fees in what appears to be an attempt to protect the profits of the state's largest utility," SolarCity said. SolarCity, Vivant Solar and Sunrun all announced plans to close operations in Nevada and lay off hundreds of jobs because of the uncertainty of Nevada's solar industry. All three cited the lack of a grandfathering clause for net metering customers. NV Energy's offer to grandfather net-metering rates might be too late to stop some or all of the solar companies from leaving the state, but it might render a class action lawsuit moot. Lead plaintiffs John Bamforth and Stanley Schone on Jan. 12 filed a class action in Clark County accusing NV Energy of consumer fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment and negligence for ending the net metering discount. Their attorney Martin Little, with Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little, was not available by telephone Jan. 27, to determine if the class action might be rendered moot if the Public Utility Commission approves NV Energy's request to grandfather net-metering rates for up to 20 years. OOMA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit for ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ooma, Inc. ("Ooma") (NYSE:OOMA) pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on July 17, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ooma securities pursuant to the IPO, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/ooma. The complaint alleges that Ooma failed to disclose material information in its Registration Statement, including: (a) that certain exceptionally large prior fiscal year sales to its largest outside reseller were not recurring or being replaced in the fiscal year leading into the IPO; (b) that the company's customer churn rate, or rate of customer terminations or failures to renew, had increased significantly as of the IPO as a result of customers having endured eight-hour service outages in April and May 2015; and (c) that technological difficulties in the company's lead generation business were causing leads to get lost in the internet before reaching their intended targets, thus negatively impacting the company's business. On July 17, 2015, Ooma successfully raised $65 million in its IPO. Ooma's stock now trades at approximately half the IPO price of $13 per share, and recently closed at $6.49 per share on January 15, 2016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. 30 Broad Street -- 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Toll Free: (877) 363-5972 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Claims by Class Members Fully Resolved ------------------------------------------------------------ Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has fully and finally resolved all potential direct claims by members of the putative class of securities claimants through a settlement effectuated through an Equity Plan, which became effective on August 5, 2014. Under the terms of that settlement, the Equity Plan provides for full satisfaction of the claims of the putative class through (i) $7,000,000 in cash, which was paid on August 5, 2014, (ii) 15% of the net litigation recovery in the action against Proskauer, described below, (iii) $5,000,000 in cash, payable following the entry of a final order resolving the Proskauer action, (iv) $3,000,000 in cash, payable by the reorganized Company on August 5, 2015, (v) proceeds of any residual interest the Company has in certain director and officer insurance policies, and (vi) any remaining cash in the class E1 disputed claims reserve established by the Equity Plan following resolution of all other class E1 claims. The settlement proceeds will be held in escrow pending allocations and distributions to members of the putative class to be determined by the district court overseeing the Exchange Act claims. The settled claims stem from the Company's filing of a Form 8-K on October 22, 2012 disclosing that on October 19, 2012 the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, on the recommendation of management, concluded that the Company's previously issued financial statements for at least the three years ended December 31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, should no longer be relied upon. Shortly thereafter several putative class action suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District") against the Company, its then President and Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, its then current and certain former members of its Board of the Directors, its current independent registered public accounting firm, and underwriters of the Company's public offering of notes in March 2010 (the "Offering"). The Company's former independent registered public accounting firm was later added as a defendant. Subsequent to the Company's filing for relief under Chapter 11, these suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that does not name the Company as a defendant. The consolidated suit is purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2010 and October 19, 2012 and purchasers of notes in the Offering. The plaintiffs allege that documents that the Company filed with the SEC were defective, inaccurate and misleading, that the plaintiffs relied on such documents in purchasing the Company's securities, and that, as a result, the plaintiffs suffered losses. The plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Act against all defendants and claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against the then former President and former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Following additional amendments on plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims and motion to dismiss briefing, on April 28, 2014, the Southern District denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims filed by the then former President and former Chief Financial Officer on the third amended complaint. On March 18, 2015, OSG's former independent registered public accounting firm moved for summary judgment and on May 29, 2015, the Southern District issued an order granting that motion. On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 2, 2015, the plaintiffs and OSG's former independent registered public accounting firm filed a stipulation withdrawing that appeal with prejudice. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for the Southern District to preliminarily approve settlements with respect to all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims, including settlements with former officers and directors of the Company, the Company's former underwriters, and the Company's current independent registered public accounting firm that contemplate payments of $10,500,000, $4,000,000 and $1,750,000, respectively, on behalf of such defendants. On August 12, 2015, the Southern District preliminarily approved those settlements, and a hearing on final approval of the settlements is scheduled for December 1, 2015. The plaintiffs in the Southern District action filed a proof of claim against the Company in the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to a settlement with such plaintiffs and the putative class on whose behalf their claim is filed, their direct claims against the Company are fully and finally resolved based on the Equity Plan treatment described. Separately, certain of the defendants in the Southern District have filed claims in the Bankruptcy Court against the Company for indemnification or reimbursement based on potential losses incurred in connection with such action. Each of those indemnification claims, asserted by certain former directors and officers of the Company, have been released pursuant to the Equity Plan or otherwise resolved by the Reorganized Debtors. In addition, the indemnification claims asserted by the Company's former underwriters have been resolved and paid pursuant to the orders of the Bankruptcy Court and the Equity Plan. On October 5, 2015, following the resolution of all disputed Class E1 claims, the Reorganized Debtors disbursed the remaining funds in the Disputed Claims Reserve for Class E1 to representatives of the putative class in accordance with the Equity Plan and confirmation order The Equity Plan and orders of the Bankruptcy Court foreclose the defendants in the Southern District from pursuing any other or further remedies against the Company. As such, management estimates the amount of its remaining exposure with respect to the actions pending before the Southern District described at zero. PAYMENT DATA: "McFarland" Exec. Compensation Suit Not Yet Served ---------------------------------------------------------------- Payment Data Systems, Inc. has not yet been served with the class action lawsuit filed by Michael McFarland as of November 11, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On June 26, 2015, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the Company, and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated shareholders of the Company, filed a class- action lawsuit in United States District Court, District of Nevada. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment by the Company's Board of Directors and certain executive officers and directors in connection with excessive and unfair compensation paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive compensation as well as damages in an unspecified amount. "As of November 11, 2015, we have not yet been served," the Company said. "We believe the claims are without merit and it is unlikely that a loss will be incurred, therefore we have not accrued for a potential loss. However, the outcomes of the disputes are still uncertain and it is possible we may incur legal fees and losses in the future." PETROLES THERRIEN: Quebec Court Splits Gas Price Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde & Co reports that in the context of this class action, Jacques v. Petroles Therrien Inc., the Quebec Superior Court recently granted a request to split the action, thereby splitting the trial into two stages: a first stage during which damages will be assessed and a second stage addressing liability. In this case, the plaintiffs essentially claim that the defendants engaged in anticompetitive activities to sell gas in Quebec. The Court had to rule on a motion by the defendants, who, prior to the presentation of evidence on liability, wanted the Court to determine the appropriate method for the calculation of damages as well as their quantum. The Court began its analysis by reiterating the principles that should guide the judge seized of such a motion. It noted that although the general rule is that a trial is heard as a whole, the splitting of an action is not an extraordinary measure. Splitting an action is appropriate if it accelerates the judicial process, while reducing costs. More specifically, the Court must determine whether certain predefined criteria favor splitting the action or not. Its analysis may be summarized as responding to the following questions: Are the issues to be determined during the first stage simple or complex? Are the issues to be determined during the first stage distinct from those that will be dealt with during the second stage, or are they closely linked? Is the judgment to be rendered at the end of the first stage susceptible of putting an end to the litigation, of limiting the scope of the issues to be determined during the second stage or likely to increase the chances of reaching a settlement of the file? What resources have the parties already dedicated to one or the other issues or all of them taken together as a whole? What advantages will splitting the action provide the parties in comparison to the risks or inconveniences that it may cause? The Court must thus ensure that splitting the action respects the rule of proportionality and promotes access to justice. In regard to the complexity of the issues, the Court noted that the parties had obtained a total of eight expert reports on the issue of damages and that, further to the Court's request, the experts had met and prepared a joint report. Although it was agreed in the joint report that the same damage calculation methodology would be used, some fundamental issues in regard to the assessment of damages remained to be determined. Thus, considering the reports obtained and the complexity of the issues, the Court ruled that this criterion favored splitting the action. In regard to the second question, the Court was of the view that, like in most cases, the issues regarding liability could be treated separately from those regarding damages and that, in this case, nothing indicated that these issues were closely linked. The Court indicated that the expert reports already contained the information required and the methodology to be used to assess the damages. With respect to the third question, the Court noted that the defendants were unanimously of the view that a judgment quantifying the damages would encourage them to settle the litigation or at least limit the questions to be debated during the second stage of the trial. On the other hand, the Court noted that the plaintiffs would only be inclined to settle if their expert's theory was retained by the Court. Considering that splitting the action serves primarily the proper administration of justice before aiming to put an end to litigation, the Court concluded that, in this case, splitting the action could, all the same, have a decisive influence on the continuation of the dispute. In regard to the resources already dedicated by the parties to the litigation, the Court referred to the eight expert reports and the joint report already prepared and indicated that it would be useful to conduct a thorough analysis of the elements already available considering all the work remaining to be done by the parties in regard to the evidence on liability. Finally, considering that splitting the action is merely a procedural measure and would not cause the parties to lose any rights, the Court granted the motion. In closing, it should be noted that under the new Code of Civil Procedure, an action may be split of the judge's own motion, whereas previously, splitting the action had to be requested by one of the parties. It will be interesting to see if judges will avail themselves of this new power in order to encourage recourse to private dispute resolution methods and encourage the proportionate and economical application of procedure, which, moreover, are among the principle objectives of the new code. PET VALU: Franchisee Class Action Dismissed by Ontario Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Gillian S.G. Scott, Esq. -- gscott@osler.com -- Jennifer Dolman, Esq. -- jdolman@osler.com --Evan Thomas, Esq. -- ethomas@osler.com -- and Stephanie Henry, Esq. -- sthenry@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on January 14, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a judgment for the franchisee class in the Pet Valu franchise class action. This significant decision for franchisors resulted in the dismissal of the class action in its entirety. Notably, the Court of Appeal found any failure by the franchisor to disclose information in a disclosure document does not amount to a breach of section 3 (the duty of fair dealing) of the Arthur Wishart Act (the AWA). As well, the Court of Appeal implicitly endorsed the earlier decision in another franchise class action, Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., that held that franchisors do not have a duty to disclose information to franchisees so that franchisees can verify whether or not the franchisor is complying with the franchise agreement. While the Pet Valu decision highlights and provides important reasoning on certain class action procedural points -- perhaps most importantly on the role of the case management judge in defining common issues -- this Update focuses on the Court's decision on substantive issues of particular interest to franchisors. The Pet Valu Proceedings In January 2011, Justice Strathy certified a class action against Pet Valu by current and former Pet Valu franchisees based on allegations that Pet Valu failed to pass on the benefits of volume rebates granted by their suppliers to their franchisees (2011 ONSC 287). Read our article in the February 2011 Osler Franchise Review for our commentary on the certification decision. Pet Valu subsequently moved for summary judgment. In October 2014, Justice Belobaba granted summary judgment in favour of Pet Valu on all but one issue (and the related common issue of damages) and deferred a decision on those issues. In January 2015, Justice Belobaba granted judgment for the franchisees on the remaining issues. In doing so, he held that Pet Valu had breached its statutory duty of fair dealing by creating the expectation that it had "substantial purchasing power" that it would use to obtain volume discounts that could be passed along, at least in part, to its franchisees, which Justice Belobaba found was a misrepresentation that Pet Valu failed to correct. Read our April 2015 Osler Update for our commentary on Justice Belobaba's January 2015 decision. Pet Valu appealed. Court of Appeal Decision The Court of Appeal allowed Pet Valu's appeal, finding that it had not breached section 3 of the AWA. Although the decision turns on the Court of Appeal's conclusion that Justice Belobaba erred in considering the issue of whether Pet Valu had made a misrepresentation to its franchisees when that issue had not been certified, the Court of Appeal nonetheless commented on whether there could have been a breach of section 3 if such a misrepresentation had been made. In doing so, the Court drew an important distinction between misrepresentations in a disclosure document and misrepresentations made in the course of the performance and enforcement of a franchise agreement. The Court stated that a misrepresentation in a disclosure document (or a failure to disclose material facts in a disclosure document) cannot amount to a breach of section 3 because that misrepresentation does not occur in the "performance and enforcement" of the franchise agreement as required by the clear wording of the AWA. The Court also noted that specific remedies for a franchisor's failure to comply with its disclosure obligation under section 5 of the AWA are provided for by sections 6 and 7 of the AWA. The practical implication for franchisors is that franchisees cannot rely upon section 3 to bring claims concerning misrepresentations during the disclosure period. In addition, the Court relied on the lower court's decision in Spina, where the motion judge held that section 3 does not require franchisors to disclose information to franchisees so that franchisees can verify the franchisor's compliance with the franchise agreement. The Court also indicated that section 3 cannot be relied upon to require franchisors to disclose information so that franchisees can verify whether or not statements made to the franchisees are correct. As Spina was a lower court decision that was not appealed, the Court of Appeal's endorsement of its reasoning will give it greater authority in future cases. The Court of Appeal's decisions in both Pet Valu and Spina underline its commitment to a straightforward interpretation of the clear wording of the AWA in determining the scope of the section 3 duty of fair dealing owed between parties to a franchise agreement. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Still Defending Class Suit v Radiancy Unit ---------------------------------------------------------- Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in Washington D.C. against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law Sections349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit. On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs' attorneys refiled their putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against only the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. The claims of the suit are virtually identical to the claims originally considered, and dismissed without prejudice, by the same Court. A companion suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, raising the same claims on behalf of plaintiffs from New York and West Virginia against Radiancy and its President, Dr. Dolev Rafaeli. That New York case has now been removed to the D.C. Court and the cases are in process of being consolidated into one action. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this suit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants "Cantley" Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, is seeking court approval to remove a class action lawsuit pending in Kern County, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Insurer Paid Plaintiffs' Legal Fees --------------------------------------------------- Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in connection with a $1.5 million settlement reached in a securities class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, the Company had paid its own legal fees up to the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts to be paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel were paid by the carrier of the insurance policy. On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The suit alleges various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013. A mediation on possible settlement of this action was held on November 10, 2014; the parties including the Company's insurance carrier agreed on a possible settlement. On August 11, 2015, the Court entered an order approving that proposed settlement, which provides a fund of $1.5 million for the benefit of those persons or entities who purchased securities issued by the Company during the period November 6, 2012 and November 5, 2013, inclusive. The settlement fund will also pay for plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses approved by the Court with respect to the action. The Company maintains insurance that helped to defray the cost of the proposed settlement, and does not expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The settlement was approved by the Court on August 11, 2015. The Company had paid its own legal fees up to the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts to be paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel were paid by the carrier of the insurance policy. Photomedex also disclosed that the Company was served on July 29, 2014 with an application to certify a class action, filed in Israel District Court for Tel Aviv against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiffs' who initiated this complaint have agreed to be part of, and be bound by, the settlement reached in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and the same two top executives. POPULAR INC: PCB Renews Arbitration Bid in "Valle" Case ------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Popular Community Bank has renewed its motion to compel arbitration in the class action case filed by Josefina Valle. PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, existing PCB customers, allege among other things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PCB violate New York's usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs. PCB removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item processing policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to compel arbitration. In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 7, 2015, PCB renewed its motion to compel arbitration. POPULAR INC: Parties in "Quiles" Case Reached Deal -------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Neysha Quiles have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the suit. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al., filed in December 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR). Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and others, who have been employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions, have been paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time actually worked. The Complaint seeks to maintain a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all individuals formerly or currently employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past three years. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Banco Popular violated FLSA by willfully failing to pay overtime premiums. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law. On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA action. Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out notices to all purported class members with instructions for opting into the class. Approximately sixty potential classmembers opted into the class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period. On June 25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the referenced action for an immaterial amount, subject to their reaching an agreement on the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees. POPULAR INC: Bids to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action lawsuit by Nora Fernandez, et al. remain pending to date. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular Securities have been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular Securities, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular defendants joined this opposition and motion. By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Southern District of New York containing virtually identical allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June 18, 2015. Such motions remain pending to date. POPULAR INC: BPPR Still a Defendant in RadioShack ERISA Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain employees of RadioShack incurred losses in their 401(k) plans because various fiduciaries elected to retain RadioShack's company stock in the portfolio of potential investment options. The complaint further asserts that once RadioShack's financial situation began to deteriorate in 2011, the fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the Plans") should have removed RadioShack company stock from the portfolio of potential investment options. Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("P.R. Plan"). Even though the P.R. Plan directed Popular to retain RadioShack company stock within the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges that a trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan documents or directives that it knows or reasonably should know would lead to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan participants or beneficiaries. It further alleges that Popular breached its fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any meaningful steps to protect plan participants from losses that it knew would occur; (ii) failing to divest the P.R. Plan of Company Stock; and (iii) participating in the decisions of another trustee (Wells Fargo) to protect the Plans from inevitable losses. PROTECTIVE LIFE: Del. Court Approved Settlement of Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has approved the settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Company's merger with The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited. On February 1, 2015, Protective Life became a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, a kabushiki kaisha organized under the laws of Japan ("Dai-ichi Life"), when DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life, merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"). Prior to February 1, 2015, and for the periods reported as "predecessor", the Company's stock was publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Subsequent to the Merger date, the Company remains as an SEC registrant within the United States. The Company is a holding company with subsidiaries that provide financial services through the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and investment products. The Company markets individual life insurance, credit life and disability insurance, guaranteed investment contracts, guaranteed funding agreements, fixed and variable annuities, and extended service contracts throughout the United States. The Company also maintains a separate segment devoted to the acquisition of insurance policies from other companies. Founded in 1907, Protective Life Insurance Company ("PLICO") is the Company's largest operating subsidiary. After the entry into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, four lawsuits were filed against the Company, its then current directors, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV- 2014-902474.00, was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended complaint. Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19, 2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB, filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Martin, Leyendecker, and Hilburn actions under the caption In re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the operative consolidated complaint (the "Delaware Action") and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J. Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. These lawsuits alleged that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's shareowners, that the Merger involved an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly precluded competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly material information. The complaints also alleged that the Company, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints sought injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. The Delaware Action also sought an award of unspecified damages. With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company's Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014, the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by the plaintiff. With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in that case, which set forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Delaware Action. As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplated that the parties would seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners of shares (excluding the members of the Company's Board and their immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the Company's Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or termination of the Merger, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as set forth in the MOU. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Merger which are set forth in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 25, 2014 and which supplement the information contained in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on August 25, 2014, as amended on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the Form 8-K or stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. The stipulation of settlement and release of all claims in the Delaware Action was approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 16, 2015. The terms of the settlement had no effect on the consideration received by Company shareowners in connection with the completion of the Merger, and the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel did not have a material impact upon the Company. RADIANT LOGISTICS: Co-Defendant Bankruptcy Stalls "Barahona" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court is likely to schedule a status conference in January 2016, at which time it may stay the entire case, Ingrid Barahoma v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Inc. On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards. If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and co-defendant Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii) any settlement will be properly apportioned between all named defendants and Radiant and DBA will not exclusively fund the settlement; (iv) wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the uncertainly with litigation and the difficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (v) Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement. Plaintiff recently admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she needs are in the possession of Accountabilities, and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court is likely to schedule a status conference in January 2016, at which time it may stay the entire case. At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter. RAYONIER INC: Motions to Dismiss Securities Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit are pending. Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the "November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled respectively: * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474. On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015. On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2015, which are pending. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred nor can the range of any such loss be estimated. RCS CAPITAL: Defending Against ARCH Trust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants are vigorously defending against the American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust Litigation. In connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc. ("Ventas") of all the outstanding stock of American Realty Capital aHealthcare Trust, Inc. ("ARCH"), purported shareholders of ARCH have filed multiple class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and other jurisdictions. Two of these actions named Realty Capital Securities among others, as a defendant. The actions are: Shine v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al filed June 13, 2014 and Abbassi, et al. v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al. filed July 9, 2014. The actions also assert derivative claims on behalf of ARCH against Realty Capital Securities. On October 10, 2014, lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court action filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class Action Complaint," asserting direct and derivative claims of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against multiple defendants, including Realty Capital Securities, arising from their roles providing services to ARCH in connection with the proposed acquisition of ARCH by Ventas and seek (i) to enjoin the proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed acquisition is completed (the "Maryland State Action"). A similar shareholder action, Rosenzweig v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al, 1:14-cv-02019-GLR, was filed in federal court for the District of Maryland (the "Maryland Federal Action"). On January 2, 2015 and January 5, 2015, the parties to Maryland State Action and the Maryland Federal Action executed separate memoranda of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of ARCH stockholders in each case. In connection with the settlement contemplated by each memoranda of understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. Pursuant to the executed memoranda of understanding, ARCH made certain additional disclosures related to the Ventas transaction. The parties to the Maryland State Action executed a stipulation of settlement as of August 13, 2015. The court has not issued a Preliminary Approval Order. ARCH and Ventas have agreed to pay the plaintiff's counsel in the Maryland Federal Action a mootness fee of $0.5 million, contingent upon settlement of the Maryland State Action pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of settlement and dismissal of the Maryland Federal Action. Defendants have agreed not to object or oppose any application for fees and expenses made by lead counsel in the Maryland State Action provided such application is for an award no greater than $0.5 million. There can be no assurance that the applicable court will approve the settlement outlined in the stipulation of settlement. The Company believes that such lawsuits are without merit, but the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted with certainty. Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses is determinable at this time. No provisions for any losses related to the lawsuits have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial as of September 30, 2015. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the Company. All defendants had previously stated in court filings that they believe that the claims are without merit and are defending against them vigorously. RCS CAPITAL: Feb. 2 Oral Argument Set in "Weston" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument is scheduled for February 2, 2016, on the Company's motion to dismiss the "Weston" amended complaint in its entirety. On or about December 29, 2014, a securities law class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York (Weston v. RCS Capital Corporation et al, 14 CV 10136) against the Company and certain former or current officers and directors of the Company. The lawsuit asserts the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading public statements pertaining to the Company's financial position and future business and acquisition prospects. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the financial statements of ARCP were material false and misleading as a result of accounting errors that were disclosed by ARCP on October 29, 2014; (ii) the Company's announced acquisition of Cole Capital Partners LLC and Cole Capital Advisors was at serious risk due to the accounting issues at ARCP; and (iii) the Company's revenue stream from its relationship with ARCP was in jeopardy as a result of the accounting issues at ARCP announced on October 29, 2014. A newly-appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2015, naming the Company, RCAP Holdings LLC, RCAP Equity LLC, and certain former and current officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the Company's public statements in 2014 discussing the strength and success of the Company's wholesale and investment banking businesses, as well its public statements regarding the benefits of the announced acquisition of Cole Capital, were materially false and misleading because they failed to provide an accurate portrait of the true strength and specific risks to the Company and its wholesale brokerage and investment banking businesses. Such statements allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that certain Company executives, who also held roles with ARCP, were engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misstate the financial results of ARCP. The amended complaint alleges defendants (except RCAP Equity LLC, a holding company under common ownership with RCAP Holdings with no ongoing operations, assets or liabilities) violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act in in connection with the Company's June 2014 secondary stock offering. It further alleges that the Company and certain defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Weston amended complaint in its entirety. Oral argument is scheduled for February 2, 2016. The Company believes the Weston amended complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against its allegations. RCS CAPITAL: Has Until Feb. 11 to File Motions to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the court in the ARCP Shareholder Class Action Litigation has issued a summary order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs' leave to file on a second amended complaint. The Court has given plaintiffs until December 11, 2015 to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies that the court identified in the amended complaint and defendants will have until February 11, 2016 to answer or file motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Company was named as a defendant in a consolidated federal securities law class action (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al, Civ. A. 15-cv-00421) filed in federal court in New York on January 21, 2015 brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of ARCP between May 6, 2013 and October 29, 2014, including ARCP common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. The lawsuit's claims, premised on Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege generally that defendants issued or assisted in the issuance of false and misleading statements to the investing public, including in registration statements, prospectuses, proxies and other public statements and press releases, concerning ARCP's financial results as part of a scheme to artificially inflate the value of ARCP's securities. The complaint alleges that the Company is a "control person" of ARCP under the securities laws and thus plaintiffs seek to hold the Company responsible for the alleged misstatements of ARCP and its officers and directors. The Company is also alleged to be a "structuring advisor" to ARCP. Realty Capital Securities is named as a defendant based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July 2013 convertible notes offering. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, like the original complaint, alleges that the Company is a "control person" of ARCP under the securities laws. The amended complaint also names Realty Capital Securities as a defendant based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July 2013 convertible notes offering. The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations contained in the complaint. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims against it and Realty Capital Securities. Oral argument was held on October 27, 2015. On November 6, 2015, the court issued a summary order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs' leave to file on a second amended complaint. The Court has given plaintiffs until December 11, 2015 to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies that the court identified in the amended complaint and defendants will have until February 11, 2016 to answer or file motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. RENASANT CORP: Hearing Held to Approve Accord in Stockholder Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Renasant Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing has been scheduled in November 2015 for a Maryland court to determine if the settlement agreement in a stockholder class action lawsuit should be approved. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q report. On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit, Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division (the "Court"), against Heritage Financial Group, Inc. ("Heritage"), the members of its board of directors, HeritageBank of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank. The complaint, which was amended on February 18, 2015, alleged that the Heritage directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or violated Maryland law in connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize shareholder value and failing to disclose material information in the February 9, 2015 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus and that Heritage, HeritageBank of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition to monetary damages in an unspecified amount and other remedies, the lawsuit sought to enjoin Heritage and Company stockholders from voting on the merger at their respective special meetings and to otherwise enjoin the directors from consummating the merger. While the defendants believed these actions were without merit, in order to avoid the expense of litigation, Heritage, HeritageBank of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement ("Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiff in which Heritage, without admission of liability, agreed to make certain disclosures related to the merger agreement in supplemental materials which were filed with the SEC in a Form 8-K on May 18, 2015. The Settlement Agreement is subject to Court approval after notice to the former shareholders of Heritage. The parties have finalized the settlement documents and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the Court for approval, which may lead to payment of attorney's fees and costs of $262,500, which would conclude the litigation if accepted by the Court. A hearing is scheduled in November 2015 for the Court to determine if the Settlement Agreement should be approved. ROCK CREEK: Submits Responsive Documents in Illinois Case --------------------------------------------------------- Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is continuing to produce responsive documents to the Plaintiffs in an Illinois class action lawsuit on a rolling basis, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class action naming the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for the Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended purposes of the product. The complaint purported to allege claims for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. The Company has agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific, Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and GNC Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). The Amended Complaint also includes an additional named plaintiff, Jerry Van Norman, who alleges that he is a citizen of Parkville, Missouri. The Amended Complaint requests certification of an "Illinois Class" consisting of all persons who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc(R) dietary supplement in Illinois between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses," and a "Missouri Class" consisting of "all persons who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc(R) dietary supplement in Missouri between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses." The Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts: (1) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act of Illinois; (2) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act; (3) breach of express warranty under Illinois law; (4) breach of express warranty under Missouri law; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Illinois law; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law; and (7) unjust enrichment. Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc(R), a dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid and promoted Anatabloc(R) as a "wonder drug" with a number of medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation (associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these claims in clinical trials or received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for Anatabloc(R), and that Anatabloc(R) "was never the 'wonder drug' it claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Anatabloc(R) based upon claims that it provides "anti-inflammatory support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he purchased Anatabloc(R) to "reduce inflammation and pain in his joints," and Mr. Van Norman alleges that he "suffers back and knee problems, as well as arthritis, and expected Anatabloc(R) to be effective in treating these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc(R) to help alleviate his symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that Anatabloc(R) did not provide the relief promised by the Defendants. Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of several additional states like the original Complaint, on February 10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535; California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399; Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5, Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3); Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and, Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc(R)," and demanding that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches and return all monies paid by putative class members." The Defendants timely moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on April 22, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the Court entered an order lifting the stay of discovery that had been in place in the case. The Plaintiffs served discovery requests on May 18, 2015, to which the Company responded on June 17, 2015. The Company is continuing to produce responsive documents to the Plaintiffs on a rolling basis. The next status hearing before the Court was scheduled for September 24, 2015 and was reset for November 23, 2015. To date, no amounts for loss contingency have been accrued in the consolidated financial statements. ROCKET FUEL: Shareholder Class Action Mulled -------------------------------------------- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, a shareholder rights law firm, is investigating potential claims on behalf of investors of Rocket Fuel Inc. (NASDAQ:FUEL). Rocket Fuel is a technology company that provides artificial-intelligence digital advertising solutions. Rocket Fuel faces a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased stock between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014 (the "Class Period"). The shareholder class action alleges that during the Class Period, Rocket Fuel and certain of its officers and directors misled investors by failing to disclose that a large percentage of ads Rocket Fuel brokered were being "viewed" by automated fraudulent computer programs that it could not identify and eliminate, which placed its operations and financial performance in jeopardy. Prior to the class action lawsuit being filed, Rocket Fuel stock traded as high as $71.89 per share, on January 25, 2016, however, the stock closed at just $3.15 per share. If you are a long-term shareholder of Rocket Fuel, continuously holding shares you may have standing to hold the Company harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. SABINE OIL: Forest Oil Class Suit Remains Stayed Amid Bankruptcy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the class action lawsuit related to the Company's combination with Forest Oil Corporation is presently stayed in view of Sabine Oil's bankruptcy filing. The parties also are negotiating the stipulation of settlement, Sabine Oil said. On December 16, 2014, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Forest Oil Corporation, a New York corporation, completed the combination of their respective businesses through a series of transaction agreements whereby certain indirect equity holders of Sabine O&G contributed the equity interests in Sabine O&G to Forest Oil Corporation. In exchange for this contribution, the equity holders of Sabine O&G received shares of Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation common stock and Series A senior non-voting equity-equivalent preferred stock collectively representing approximately a 73.5% economic interest in Sabine and 40% of the total voting power in Sabine. On December 19, 2014, Forest Oil Corporation changed its name to "Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation." Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014. On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC). The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are alleged against that entity. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as would have been required under the original transaction structure. The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices" that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential transactions with other bidders. The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law, and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved. In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409- MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May 29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits improperly received by defendants. On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to reopening on good cause shown. On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date. The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form 8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at least one additional independent director, as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required to be independent. In connection with the closing of the Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual, was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to replace an independent director who resigned from the board of directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of directors eight in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision. Plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties' reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are presently negotiating. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith, including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions. There can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of settlement. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure. On July 15, 2015, Sabine filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed. SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Hearing Held on Suit over Bail System -------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., Jan. 26 tore into attorneys challenging San Francisco's bail system as unconstitutional, saying they need to "think about a legal avenue" to achieve their goal, "to the extent that it exists." "I understand the big picture. What I'm looking for from you and what is your job is to figure out the legal avenue to get there. That's not my job. And I don't see it here," U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told Phil Telfeyan with Washington, D.C.- based Equal Justice Under the Law. Telefeyan represents two women arrested in October 2015 -- Riana Buffin,19, and Crystal Patterson, 29 -- on suspicion of grand theft (Buffin) and assault (Patterson). Both were released without charges, after spending several days behind bars because neither could afford bail. Buffin's bond was set at $30,000, Patterson's at $150,000. Their putative class action lawsuit claims the City and County of San Francisco unconstitutionally criminalize poverty by keeping poor arrestees in jail because they can't afford to post bail. They also claimed that California violated their rights because it requires its 58 counties to set money bail schedules. The women sought class certification and a preliminary injunction to end the practice of bail. They got neither. Gonzalez Rogers gave Telfeyan and his co-counsel Katherine Hubbard 30 days to come up with a legal analysis of how the case can proceed in light of the fact that the California has not consented to be sued. "You now don't have a state defendant because they're immune," Gonzalez Rogers said, noting that bail is determined by the Superior Court judges, who are state officials. "You don't have the judges in this suit, and frankly, I don't think you can sue them," she said. "Your legal theory seems ambiguous and unformed." Hubbard replied: "We feel our theory is clear. San Francisco, which operates its county jail, is detaining arrestees pre-trial in violation of the Constitution. They are detaining arrestees based on wealth status because people who can't afford it are permitted to walk out of jail and people who cannot must remain in jail." Gonzalez Rogers was not impressed: "I understand what you're hoping to achieve, but you still have to do the legal analysis, and pontificating at the mike is not legal analysis." Telfeyan stepped in, saying a federal court could strike down a state order if it violates the Constitution. Gonzalez Rogers, a former Alameda Superior Court judge, was not persuaded. "You want me to issue an order to all of the judges in San Francisco telling them that their orders are unconstitutional?" She continued: "I hear your argument, but when you have statements in your claim like the CCSF operates the Sheriff's Department, county jail and Superior Court, it clearly suggests to me you don't understand how it works. The Superior Court is a constitutional branch of the California government. It gives me no confidence in your ability to have articulated something that may be successful." Telfeyan told reporters later that he did not see the judge's order as a setback. "It sounds like we have 30 days to figure out exactly what she needs to hear," he said. "She wants some clarification about what the City and County of San Francisco is liable for. If the judges are immune, then the only question is what liability does City and County of San Francisco have for keeping people in its jail illegally?" He added: "The county cannot violate the federal Constitution even if ordered to do so by a state judge." Equal Justice has brought six successful lawsuits in cities and counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri. Two actions in Georgia and Kansas are still being litigated. Harmeet Dhillon, who represents the California Bail Agents Association, said Gonzalez-Rogers got it right by asking for a more definite statement of the case. "Both my partner and I used to work at the same firm as her before she joined the bench, and she's a pretty intelligent, thorough, hard-hitting, not-going-to-be-fooled judge, and she wasn't having any of their half-baked arguments," Dhillon said in an interview outside the Oakland Federal Courthouse. Dhillon said the plaintiffs' only way forward is to have the state's bail statute declared unconstitutional. "As the judge clearly articulated, she can't order state court judges to do X, Y or Z. Today was a total loss for the plaintiffs," Dhillon said. "The county has to follow what the judges say. Sheriffs don't have a right to ignore the judges, and a federal judge can't order them to. What the state court judges are doing is applying a state statute passed by the legislators. What a federal judge can do is declare that statute unconstitutional, but that's not the relief requested in this lawsuit." Dhillon said the bail association will try to intervene in the case if it moves ahead. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Event USA's Motion to Compel Discovery Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James D. Petersen denied Defendant Event USA Corp.'s motion to compel discovery in the captioned case SCOTT BOEHM and DAVID STLUKA, Plaintiffs, v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC., NICHOLAS MARTIN, SPORTS-4-LESS, LUKE WEIN, BEYOND STUDIO + PUBLISHING, LLC, JOHN DOE 1, SCOOTER G. SPORTS, MICHAEL LOVELACE, 22 PROMOTIONS, LLC, GERALD MILLER, ANDREW WREDBERG, AW ARTWORKS, LLC, JESSE WINIECKI, AMANDA McVEIGH, JOHN GEORGE, GAMEDAY SPORTS, ANGELA CLEARY, EVENT USA CORP., BRIAN BOPREY, NANCY BOPREY, DAVID THOMASON, WAUKESHA SPORTSCARDS, ROBB DOBRATZ, and MICHAEL CLEARY, Defendants, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Intervenor, SCOTT'S BREWERY COLLECTIBLES and SCOTT SVEHLA, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant, No.: 15-cv-379-jdp, (W.D. Wis.) Plaintiffs filed a set of sharp-toned motions accusing some defendants of violating the court's injunction order. A similarly-toned motion also was filed by defendant Event USA Corp. accusing plaintiffs of discovery abuse. Event USA has moved to amend its pleadings to add a crossclaim against defendant David Thomason and to file a third-party complaint against Dan Zimprich and Legends of the Field, LLC. Plaintiffs have moved to sanction defendants Angela Cleary, Michael Cleary, Gameday Sports, and Nicholas Martin for violating the preliminary injunction, and for making misrepresentations to the court. Plaintiffs asked for both civil and criminal sanctions for contempt. They requested that the court impose monetary fines, shift their attorney fees, expand the terms of the injunction, and enter directed verdicts or judgments of willfulness. In his Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2015 available at http://is.gd/X1vFAZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Peterson denied Event USA's motion to compel discovery. The Court also denied the Plaintiffs Scott Boehm and David Stluka's motion for an extension of time to respond to Event USA's motion to compel for being moot. The Court said Event USA may file as a new docket entry an amended pleading including a crossclaim against defendant David Thomason. The Court also granted Nicholas Martin's motion to file a sur- reply. Moreover, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendants Angela Cleary, Michael Cleary, and Gameday Sports. The Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against Defendant Nicholas Martin is granted in part. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against Event USA and directed Plaintiffs to file documentation supporting the attorney fees that they incurred in bringing these three sanctions motions by January 4, 2016. Any opposition or response to the amount of fees was due by January 11, 2016. Danial A. Nelson, Esq. -- dnelson@nelsonmcculloch.com Kevin Patrick McCulloch, Esq. and Nathaniel Kleinman, Esq. -- of Nelson & McCulloch LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Scott Boehm Frederick J. Strampe, Esq. -- fstrampe@borgelt.com April Katheryn Toy, Esq. and Julia Blair Semenak, Esq. -- jsemenak@borgelt.com of Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C. serve as counsel for Defendant Scheels All Sports, Inc. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Litigation over Bally Acquisition Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Nevada court has dismissed with prejudice the litigation related to the acquisition of Bally Technologies, Inc., and approved the settlement in the case. Complaints challenging the Bally acquisition were filed in August 2014 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions were putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The complaints generally alleged that the Bally directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. All of the actions were consolidated under the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14- 705012- B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions. On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class- wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary and final approval of the Nevada court, which would consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally, Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims alleged in the Nevada Action. The MOU provided that Bally would make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014. On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November 21, 2014. After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement contemplated by the MOU was fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Bally public stockholders. In April 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a class- wide basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to court approval. Subsequently, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to class members. The Nevada court approved the motion for preliminary approval in June 2015. In October 2015, the Nevada court dismissed the matter with prejudice, approved the settlement, and awarded $450,000 to be paid by the Company for plaintiff's' attorneys fees. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in a class action against the Oregon State Lottery and other defendants is pending, Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the "auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary damages. WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2015. In April 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion to dismiss, stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. In June 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal on the matter. "We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the lawsuit," the Company said. SECRET TO LIFE COACHING: Former Clients File Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Abby Haglage, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that a married couple who ran a successful life-coaching business engaged in fraud, theft, and racketeering, a new lawsuit alleges. It's early 2015 in a Paris conference room and nerdy men in suits are shouting: "I'm sassy, I'm sexy, I'm sensational!" The words, indecipherable if not for the video's caption, are a part of a warm-up game during a life-coaching retreat -- one aimed at shaping the world's best life coaches. A company called The Secret to Life Coaching (TSTLC) -- one that's now under government investigation -- hosted the retreat. Founded in 2008 by Coral Rose Grant, TSTLC's stated mission is to help people "live their best lives" and, ultimately, make a career out of teaching others the same. Recently, it is the subject of a major class-action lawsuit led by two former clients, Cheri Lucas and April Fisher -- the latter of whom taught classes for TSTLC. Together, the two allege that the company was part of a Ponzi scheme devised by Coral and her husband, Mac, in which they pocketed investor money totaling anywhere from $8 million to $20 million, using it to "live like royalty." Charging people hundreds of dollars to help them find the "life of their dreams," they instead used it to live out their own. The mastermind behind the scheme, the two claim, was a "career fraudster and federal felon" Kevin Trudeau, the "infomercial king" who is serving time in prison for diet books. Coral, they say, not only visited Mr. Trudeau in prison, but spent money trying to get him released. Filed on behalf of "all persons who have entered into 'coaching contracts' or 'investor contracts' with any of the defendants," Lucas and Fisher are asking for $30 million total in damages for fraud, theft, and racketeering, as well as gross negligence and deceptive trade. The claim paints a grim picture of scam, with the master coaches turning clients into players -- stripping them of hundreds of thousands of dollars and feeding them lies about "happiness." On TSTLF's website users are greeted by the words "Become a Life Coach" in enormous white letters. Below is a picture of Coral, bronzed and beaming with platinum curls falling over her (you guessed it) coral sweater. Her bio describes her as a "true humanitarian" whose mission is to "create peace on our planet." Beside it is a recent video of Coral titled How Riches Come to You. Her husband, Mac, appears beneath her, a tall, dark-haired man donning a suit and soul patch. He's identified both as the Chief Operating Officer as well as a "successful entrepreneur, motivational speaker, Master Coach, and a leader in a network marketing company." Beyond enjoying life with Coral (his "soul mate"), he loves "coaching people on stepping into their true power." Coral, who claims to have "learned the secrets to be able to live every day on purpose and manifest her absolute dream life in every way," spreads the word through radio and TV. Underneath details about her television program, The Secret to Life Coaching, she writes to "Tune in every week to the Oxygen network!" A spokesperson from Oxygen told The Daily Beast that no such show airs on the network. The core of the company's mission comes from its certification section, which poses banal questions such as, "Do you like helping people?" The course is said to last 90 days, consisting of weekly 60-minute classes with small groups of "like-minded people." On Facebook, the Grants seem to frequently change the price, sometimes offering it for $15 per month, other times asking close to $300 for the first course alone. Their definition of "living your best life" seems fairly broad. "From a middle aged soccer mom looking to lose a few pounds to an upper level executive looking to negotiate a seven-figure business deal, you will possess the confidence, skill and knowledge required to make you an invaluable resource in the lives of your Life Coaching clients," their certification page reads. "As a Life Coaching Professional, you can demand anywhere from $75 to $500 per hour." Where the breakdown seems to have happened, according to the complaint, is what the Grants' call a "commission agreement." Essentially a "coaching contract," the lawsuit explains it as a "commission percentage or fee" rewarded to coaches who either recruited coaching clients or taught coaching classes themselves. It's money, they say, that never came. On top of this, the Grants also "invited people (coaches, members, clients) to become 'investors,' i.e. give them flat sums in exchange for non-specific future returns." Returns that, according to the plaintiffs, never panned out. Instead, Lucas and Fisher said the Grants pocketed the money owed to coaches and the money given by investors. "The Grants live a lavish lifestyle with their ill-gotten gains. They lease multiple mansions around the United States, fly around the country in chartered private jets, and lease or own luxury vehicles (Bentleys, for example)," reads the complaint. "Put simply, Coral and Mac Grant are con artists living high on the hog with the millions they have stolen from their unsuspecting contractors and investors." After spending all of the money that they'd pocketed from investors and commission fees, the Grants allegedly started opening up smaller companies and telling clients to direct their money there. Before doing so, they canceled previous contracts, citing "recent events," and noting that investors would not be able to collect their money. But the shady activity doesn't stop there, according to Lucas, who alleges that Coral was given a roadmap for her Ponzi scheme by Kevin Trudeau. A former infomercial salesman, who was at one pointed deemed the "best salesman of all time," Trudeau was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a book called Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Lucas says she has proof that Coral got her ideas from Trudeau, prompting the master life coach to donate funds from her company to the Kevin Trudeau Legal Defense Fund. She also alleges that the scheme eventually became too large for Trudeau to support, alleging that he "told [Coral] to stop." Quotes from Trudeau sometimes appear on the company's Facebook page, most recently this one: "Attitude is more important than facts, because facts are usually just opinions!" If the Grants set out to help people live their best lives, they may have gotten lost along the way. According to the plantiffs' attorneys, the two went as far as to steal from clients' life savings. "Coral and Mac Grant took advantage of a lot of people," they told The Daily Beast. "They took millions of dollars with no intention of giving it back." SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Defending Suits over Martha Stewart Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Sequential Brands Group, Inc. is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its merger with to Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., Sequential said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 22, 2015 (the "MSLO Merger Agreement"), among the Company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("MSLO"), Singer Madeline Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("TopCo"), Madeline Merger Sub., Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of TopCo ("Madeline Merger Sub"), and Singer Merger Sub., Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of TopCo ("Singer Merger Sub" and, together with the Madeline Merger Sub, the "Merger Subs"), pursuant to which the Company will acquire MSLO. In connection with the MSLO Merger Agreement, 13 putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware during the period between June 25, 2015 and July 28, 2015 against MSLO, the MSLO board of directors, the Company, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub and TopCo. Such class action lawsuits allege that the members of the MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and that MSLO, the Company, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub and TopCo aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by members of MSLO board of directors. The Company has referred the matters to external counsel. On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al. to be the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Based on preliminary discussions, the Company believes that the consolidated action is not likely to result in material liability for the Company. SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Dismiss Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Thump reports that January was full of ups and downs for SFX Entertainment -- the events company that owns and operates several major EDM festivals in North America, including Electric Zoo, Mysteryland and Tomorrowland. On January 25, 2015, Robert F. X. Sillerman's company's share price tumbled by nearly 14% on the New York Stock Exchange, bringing the price of a share to under 10 cents. This comes after a turbulent year for SFX Entertainment, in which the company experienced plummeting stock, considered filing for bankruptcy, and faced legal action from its investors. The EDM conglomerate is currently valued at $9.52 million. When the company went public in October 2013, it did so with a share price of $13 a share and was valued at over $1 billion. While the stock market wasn't doing any favors for the events company, SFX Entertainment did find some financial respite in the settling of a class action lawsuit. Mixmag reported on Jan. 25 that according to documents obtained by the publication, SFX settled an outstanding lawsuit brought against the company by Paolo Moreno, an EDM promoter, and two other plaintiffs, who claimed that the idea for SFX Entertainment was Moreno's. Mixmag reported that despite the lawsuit progressing through California's court system, it came to an abrupt end on January 22, when it was dismissed by the plaintiffs for reasons the publication did not expand on. Mr. Sillerman, however, still has another class action lawsuit hanging over his head. In September of last year, a group of investors sued Mr. Sillerman for misleading them into thinking he had the financial resources to acquire the outstanding stock in SFX Entertainment he didn't already own. On January 21, a day before the Moreno lawsuit was settled, SFX announced it had secured a much-needed investment lifeline from a Canadian private equity firm. In filings made to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Catalyst Capital Group announced a $20 million investment in the company. It remains to be seen if the eleventh-hour investment, and settled lawsuit, will be enough to save the ailing company. When contacted by THUMP, a representative of SFX Entertainment declined to comment on either the falling share price, or the class action lawsuit. SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Final Judgment & Dismissal Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a New York court has entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice against all settling parties in the case, In re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company is not part of this settlement. On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010, against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the "Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor, KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements made during the class period and asserts a claim against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon. While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery against the Company under the Plan is limited to available insurance coverage and proceeds. On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1, 2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint. On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved ("Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion") for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to amend their complaint under Rule 15(a) and (d) against the Independent Directors. On May 28, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion and motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs and KPMG HK executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve all claims between them that were or could have been raised in the litigation. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement and related papers including a memorandum in support, a form of notice and the Stipulation. On June 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation and following a hearing on September 17, 2015, the Court finally approved the Stipulation and the settlement provided for therein. On September 25, 2015, the Court entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice against all Settling Parties. The Stipulation did not resolve Plaintiffs' complaint against the Company or its former officers or directors. On July 10, 2015, the Company and Plaintiffs informed the Court that the parties anticipated filing a notice of dismissal of this action as against the Company once there was a final order finally adjudicating the Class 5 Proof of Claim.. As a result, on July 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the Company without prejudice, provided any application to restore the Company as a defendant be made within thirty days. Plaintiffs made no application to restore the Company as a defendant. SHERMAN FINANCIAL: FDCPA/RICO Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Bauer, writing for InsideARM.com, reports that a federal judge in Indianapolis has ruled that a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the United States Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") against Sherman Financial Group, one of the country's largest debt buyers, cannot proceed as a class action because circumstances vary too much among the class members. In a decision filed on January 22, 2016, U.S. District Judge Tanya Pratt said individual proof would be needed for each class member to support their claims that Sherman subsidiaries did not own consumers' debt when they tried to collect it. The action was originally filed on November 9, 2012. (Cox, et al v. Sherman Capital LLC, et al. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1:12-cv-01654-TWP-MJD) The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants did not actually own their debts when the Defendant and their agents engaged in collection activities against them and the prospective class members. Plaintiff's argument hinges upon the practice of "securitizing" pools of receivables. From the Order: "Underlying the argument that [Defendants] did not own the Plaintiffs' debts is the Plaintiffs' understanding of the effects of "securitization" on the debts. Plaintiffs allege that shortly after a consumer assumes a debt obligation or receivable, the originating bank, through subsidiaries, pools the receivable with others into a financial instrument that can be sold to outside investors, which results in the creation of an asset-backed security. According to the Plaintiffs, the primary results of securitization are: -- the originating bank is paid in full; -- the originating bank surrenders all control and ownership including all rights, title, and interest over the receivables; -- the outside investors own the receivables as result of a true sale; -- evidence of indebtedness is delivered to the Trustee; -- the originating bank transforms into the servicer for the asset-backed security; and -- the originating bank cannot get the receivables back without violating numerous agency rules. Thereafter, if the consumer does not pay the debt obligation or receivable, the originating bank (which now acts as the "servicer" for the asset-backed security) has 180 days to collect upon the receivable. If the originating bank is unsuccessful, the debt or receivable is considered "charged-off". When this occurs, the originating bank (servicer) informs the investor who purchased the receivable, and if the investor had a credit default agreement or similar credit enhancement, the investor is paid in full. According to Plaintiffs, once the investor is paid in full, there is no longer a debt obligation. Instead, the only thing that is left over is "data" of the debt or receivable, therefore, the originating bank can only sell the data and not the actual debt. Despite the Plaintiffs' description of securitization and its purported effect on their debts or receivables, Defendants claim that they, nevertheless, obtained valid title to each of the named Plaintiffs' debts directly from the originating banks. In addition, Defendants argue that there is competing evidence to suggest that after a securitized receivable is "written off" by the originating bank, the receivable or debt is automatically removed from the securitized trust and is returned to the originating bank rather than becoming merely "data". The opinion discusses the various legal standards for class action certification. But the crux of the decision was that after three years of contentious litigation and extensive discovery the Plaintiffs could not produce evidence that their debts were actually securitized, and thus the Plaintiffs still could not affirmatively demonstrate evidence to establish their primary legal theory in regards to the four named Plaintiffs' debts. Judge Pratt wrote: "If the named Plaintiffs' debts were not securitized and the Plaintiffs must rely on a securitization theory to establish their claims, then the named Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the class. Alternatively, if the named Plaintiffs' debts were securitized but the Plaintiffs' attorney cannot demonstrate securitization for even the four named Plaintiffs, let alone a class of tens of thousands of Indiana consumers, the Plaintiffs may not be "adequate" for purposes of class certification. The case would require an individualized review of the history of each Plaintiff's debt obligation, from creation and securitization through non-payment, "write-off", sale, and attempted collection. Because of the significant number of individualized factual issues, the Plaintiffs' claims appear to be unmanageable as a class action under any definition." insideARM Perspective This case presented a fascinating legal issue regarding the impact of "securitizations" of pools of receivables in a subsequent sale of accounts. The issue was the subject of extensive legal maneuvering by both parties. A review of the court docket found 529 docket entries over the past three years. In her opinion the Judge noted, ". . . even a cursory review of the procedural history of the case, reveals a history of contentious discovery disputes with 'wins' and 'losses' on both sides." In this case, the potential exposure for Sherman was enormous. The Plaintiffs asserted that the number of class members could easily number in the tens of thousands, noting that the Defendants collected on over 1,174,222 Indiana consumer accounts between 2008 and 2013. Plaintiff had also alleged that between November 2008 and November 2013, the Defendants collected over $79,940,415.50 on over 1,174,222 Indiana consumer accounts. In addition, over the same period, the Defendants collected another $18,890,420.79 through 33,440 lawsuits against Indiana consumers. Class action litigation is expensive, for both parties. Assuming this decision withstands any subsequent appeal it appears that Sherman made a good decision to vigorously defend the case. SIENTRA INC: Acknowledges C.D. Calif. "Flynn" Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a lawsuit styled as a class action of Sientra's stockholders was filed on September 25, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names Sientra and certain of its officers as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning Sientra's business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. This lawsuit is in its initial stages, and no substantive proceedings have occurred to date. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2015, the case is captioned John M. Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIENTRA, Inc., Hani Zeini, And Matthew Pigeon, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07548 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2015). SIENTRA INC: Two Stockholder Cases Filed in San Mateo Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that two lawsuits styled as class actions of Sientra's stockholders were filed on October 28, 2015 and November 5, 2015, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name Sientra, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with Sientra's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements in Sientra's offering documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning Sientra's business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The lawsuits are in their initial stages, and no substantive proceedings have occurred to date. SOCAL GAS: Two Porter Ranch Businesses File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Champaign Williams, writing for San Fernando Valley Business Journal, reports that two Porter Ranch businesses filed a class- action lawsuit against SoCal Gas Co. and parent company Sempra Energy over the Aliso Canyon gas leak that has left thousands of residents displaced and the neighborhood in a state of economic disarray. The natural gas leak was discovered on Oct. 23 seeping into the air above Porter Ranch in the Santa Susana mountains, and small businesses have suffered from a lack of clientele as a result. The two businesses, real estate firm Saab Properties and family- operated Nail Garden, hope to recover damages lost during these past three months as residents have left the neighborhood in droves, as reported by the Los Angeles Daily News. The suit was filed on Jan. 22 in Los Angeles Superior Court with law firms Panish Shea & Boyle in Los Angeles and Lancaster-based R. Rex Parris Law Firm representing the plaintiffs. News of these legal proceedings follows an announcement from SoCal Gas spokeswoman Anne Silva stating the company has successfully entered the fifth and final stage of its plans to fix and seal the leaking well. The utility announced on Jan. 25 that it anticipates the leak will be resolved by late February, if not sooner. "Once the well has been sealed, gas will no longer be entering the well from the reservoir, and any remaining odors associated with the leak are expected to quickly dissipate, allowing residents to return to their homes," Ms. Silva said in a statement. SOCAL GAS: Regulators Sue Over Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Jablon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that regional air regulators sued the Southern California Gas Co. on Jan. 26, seeking penalties that could surpass $25 million for a monthslong natural gas leak that is blamed for sickening neighbors and has prompted a mass evacuation of a San Fernando Valley neighborhood. The South Coast Air Quality Management District sued the utility for creating a public nuisance. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, further contends that "as a result of their negligence, people were injured," said Kurt Wiese, the agency's general counsel. The gas company does not comment on pending litigation, spokeswoman Kristine Lloyd said. The utility has been under intense criticism and regulatory scrutiny for a leak in an underground storage well at the huge Aliso Canyon storage facility. It was first reported on Oct. 23, and the gas company has said it may not be able to plug the leak until late next month. The utility announced on Jan. 25 that a relief well designed to intercept the leaking one has now reached a depth of about 8,400 feet and is 200 feet from its target. The natural gas spewing into the air contains a smelly odorant as well as traces of toxic chemicals such as benzene. It has been blamed for ailments including nosebleeds, headaches and nausea in the nearby upscale suburban neighborhood of Porter Ranch. On Jan. 23, a South Coast Air Quality Management District hearing board ordered the gas company to permanently close and seal the well. It also ordered the utility to pay for an independent health study for residents of the neighborhood and inspect all 115 wells at Aliso Canyon to help prevent future leaks. The lawsuit said the air quality management district has received more than 2,000 complaints of odor from people living or working near the facility since the leak began. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has said that benzene levels in 15 samples of air in the area were more than double normal levels but none exceeded state standards for acute exposure to benzene. Officials have said that they don't expect long-term health problems associated with the leak. About 3,700 households in and around Porter Ranch have temporarily moved out of their homes and around 2,400 more are awaiting relocation. Students from two local schools also have been temporarily relocated. The gas company could be liable for up to $250,000 in civil penalties for each day of the leak if the lawsuit ends with a determination that the utility knowing violated state law, failed to act quickly and caused great bodily injury to the public, Wiese said. That works out to about $25 million to date. SPENDSMART NETWORKS: To Defend "Marchelos" Texting Spam Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company will defend against the case, Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al. On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al, filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this action. The complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. "We believe Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and will vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims," the Company said. ST. LAWRENCE REGIONAL: April 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Notice Did You Live at Any of the Following Institutions or Know Someone Who Did? St. Lawrence Regional Centre between April 1, 1975 - June 30, 1983 Oxford Regional Centre between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1996 or in the "Mental Retardation Unit" or "MR Unit" between Jan, 1, 1969 - March 31, 1974 Durham Centre for Developmentally Handicapped between April 1, 1974 - Sept. 28, 1986 Northwestern Regional Centre between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1994 L.S. Penrose Centre between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1977 Midwestern Regional Centre between Sept. 1, 1963 - March 31, 1998 Muskoka Centre between Aug. 28, 1973 - June 30, 1993 Bluewater Centre between April 1, 1976 - Dec. 20, 1983 D'Arcy Place between Sept. 1, 1963 - Dec. 31, 1996 Adult Occupational Centre between Jan. 1, 1966 - March 31, 1999 Prince Edward Heights between Jan. 1, 1971 - Dec. 31, 1999 Pine Ridge between Sept. 1, 1963 - Aug. 31, 1984 A Lawsuit and Proposed Settlement May Affect You. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided that a class action on behalf of a "Class" of people who lived at the above institutions is allowed to go forward. There is also a proposed settlement to end the class action. What is this case about? The lawsuit says the Province of Ontario failed to properly care for and protect people who lived at the Institutions. The Province of Ontario denies these claims. The parties have reached a proposed settlement to end the lawsuit. If you are having a difficult time dealing with these issues you can call 1-866-442-4465 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027). Are you included? You are included in this lawsuit if: Compensation and legal fees If the settlement is approved by the court, there will be a claims process allowing former residents who are part of the Class to ask for compensation. KM LLP agreed that it would only be paid if there was a settlement or a successful judgment. KM LLP will seek the court's approval of its legal fees of $3.7 million plus $481,000 for taxes. All payments to the class members will come from the settlement, after payment of legal fees, tax and a mandatory payment to the Class Proceedings Fund of $2.9 million. Your legal rights and options DO NOTHING: by doing nothing you automatically stay in the class action and wait to see if the settlement is approved on April 25, 2016. You can then make a claim if the settlement is approved. Staying in this Class will not impact the residence or supports received from community based agencies which are funded by Ontario. GET OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION: If you do not want to be part of the settlement and want to keep your rights to sue Ontario individually over the claims in this case you need to remove yourself. If you remove yourself, you cannot get money from this lawsuit. To ask to be removed, send a letter to the Class Action Administrator, postmarked no later than April 15, 2016, that says you want to be removed from Clegg v. Province of Ontario. Include your name, address, telephone number, and signature. You can also get an Opt Out Form at www.schedule1facilities.ca STAY IN THE CLASS ACTION BUT OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you want to stay in the lawsuit but you don't want the settlement approved, you can object to the settlement. If you want to object to the settlement, you have to write to the Court and tell them why. You must send your written objection to the Class Action Administrator. You can ask to talk at the court hearing on April 25, 2016. * You lived at one or more of the Institutions between the dates listed above and were alive as of June 16, 2012; or * You are an estate trustee of someone who lived at one of the Institutions but who died after June 16, 2012. Who represents the former residents? The Court has appointed Koskie Minsky LLP (KM LLP) to represent the former residents as a Class. The proposed settlement The proposed settlement includes: * an approximately $35.9 million settlement fund; * a paper based claims process that will not require anyone to testify in court; and * a release by class members of all claims against the Province of Ontario stemming from the Institutions. Approval hearing The settlement, claims process and counsel fees are subject to court approval. The approval hearing shall be heard on April 25, 2016 at the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario. Class members may attend the hearing. Any class members who wish to object to the proposed settlement should provide written notice of their objection to the Claims Administrator by April 4, 2016. Contact information If you need more information or wish to object, please contact the Class Action Administrator, tollfree, at 1-866-442-4465 or TTY: 1- 877-627-7027, write to Schedule 1 Class Action Administrator, 3-505, 133 Weber Street North, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3G9, or by email at: schedule1facilities@crawco.ca Getting Notice to former residents Family members, caregivers and friends of former residents are asked to help in getting information to former residents. Please show this notice to people who are impacted by this lawsuit or their caregivers. STATE FARM: Underestimates Water Damage Claims, Calif. Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that State Farm Insurance steers claims to The ServiceMaster Co. and ServPro Industries because they "underestimate and under-restore water damage claims," a class action claims in Federal Court in San Diego, Calif. SUNTRUST BANKS: Oral Argument This Year in Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument in a class action appeal is expected to occur in 2016. Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained following the class settlement. STRH settled two such individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed. In two of such dismissed individual actions, the plaintiffs were unable to appeal the dismissals of their claims until their claims against a third party were resolved. In one of these individual actions, the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument in that appeal is expected to occur in 2016. In the other remaining action, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will file a notice of appeal. SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Suit over 401(k) Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the discovery process has begun in a class action filed on behalf of the participants of SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan. Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The discovery process has begun. SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a consolidated appeal related to the STI Classic Mutual Funds class actions remains pending. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014, and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q report. SUNTRUST BANKS: Cases Remanded Following "Tibble" Decision ---------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tibble v. Edison International, the class action cases against SunTrust related to the STI Classic Mutual Funds that are pending on appeal were remanded to the district court. On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the District Court. SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Case Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the case, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their case. TACO BELL: Bid to Decertify Classes in "Sandrika" Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone denied Defendants' motion to decertify Plaintiffs' late meal period, rest break, and underpaid meal period premium classes in the captioned case SANDRIKA MEDLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TACO BELL CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 1:07-cv-01314-SAB, (E.D. Cal.) In these consolidated actions, Plaintiffs assert class claims against Defendants arising from the alleged violations of California's Labor Code relating to the payment of minimum wages and overtime and the provision of meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs also assert claims under California's Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA), which authorizes "aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. . ." Plaintiff's first motion to certify a class was filed on December 30, 2010 which sought to certify eight subclasses: 1) the Late Meal Break Subclass, 2) the Underpaid Automatic Adjustments Subclass, 3) the On-Duty Meal Period Agreement Subclass, 4) the Unpaid On-Duty Meal Period Subclass, 5) the Rest Break Subclass, 6) the Final Pay Subclass, 7) the Vested Accrued Vacation Wages Subclass, and 8) the Non-Management Employee Vacation Subclass. It was denied without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion to strike the PAGA allegations from Plaintiff's First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court denied Defendants' motion, but noted that there appeared to be some confusion regarding which claims were raised on a class-wide basis on behalf of the certified Meal Break Subclass and which claims were raised solely on an individual basis by the named plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint which specified the claims that proceeded on a class basis and the claims that proceeded on an individual basis. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In response to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, motion to strike, and motion to amend or alter the order on class certification. The Court amended its order on class certification to reflect that the only claims proceeding on a class basis are the claims related to late meal breaks, that the prerequisites for class actions set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 apply to Plaintiff's claims under California's Private Attorney Generals Act, and that only the PAGA claims based upon late meal breaks may proceed on a class-wide, representative basis. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the class certification order. The Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend order on certification. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. In response, Defendants Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. filed a motion to decertify the late meal period, rest break, and underpaid meal period premium classes. Defendants present two arguments as to why the motions for decertification should be granted: -- Defendants assert that Plaintiffs fail to meet the commonality requirement, because the issues of law and fact that Plaintiffs said would establish liability do not actually exist. -- Defendants assert that named Plaintiffs Medlock, Hardiman, and Leyva are not typical of the class they seek to represent. In his Order dated December 11, 2015 available at http://is.gd/gkEwUFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone denied Defendants' motion to decertify Plaintiffs' late meal period, rest break, and underpaid meal period premium classes as the Plaintiffs have shown that certification on the late meal break class, rest break class, and underpaid meal premium class is warranted. The Court held that, according to Plaintiffs' allegations, Hardiman, Medlock, and Leyva were still subject to Defendants' policies for meal period and rest break scheduling. Therefore, Hardiman, Medlock, and Leyva are typical of the class that they seek to represent even if they personally were not aware of the alleged uniform policy that employees had to work five hours before taking a meal period. The Court next reviews each class separately to determine if each class meets the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) and the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). In this case, Plaintiffs' allegations about Defendants' meal policy presents a common contention capable of class-wide resolution. Rule 23 only requires Plaintiffs to establish the existence of a common contention capable of class-wide resolution -- the determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Plaintiffs need not show that every question in the case, or even a preponderance of questions, is capable of class-wide resolution, the Court said. So long as there is 'even a single common question,' a would-be class can satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). According to the Court, Plaintiffs have identified a common issue that establishes liability. Although Defendants have presented compelling evidence that the "Hourly Employee Guide," the "Matrix," and the "Wallet Card" did not reflect the official policy on the timing of meal breaks, and that the 2-2-2 methodology was used instead, the record is still susceptible to the interpretation presented by Plaintiffs. The Defendants' written policy documents appear to suggest that Defendants did not authorize a meal break before the end of the fifth hour for a shift over six hours whereas California law requires a meal break before the end of the fifth hour of a shift that is longer than six hours. The Plaintiffs have presented a common issue regarding the legality of Defendants' policy pertaining to meal breaks for employees with shifts over six hours in length. The Court also finds that Rule 23(b) is met for this claim, because questions common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is a superior method for resolution of the controversy. The Court does not find that this class is unmanageable, because as stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented that there are common proofs of liability. Therefore, the Court finds that the meal break class is properly certified. The Plaintiffs have presented a common issue regarding the legality of Defendants' policy erroneously providing for a half-hour's worth of pay for meal premiums when it should have been a full hour's worth of pay. The Court also finds that Rule 23(b) is met for this claim, because questions common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is a superior method for resolution of the controversy. The focus of the action will be on the conduct of the Defendants and their policy as opposed to the conduct of individual class members. The Court does not find that this class is unmanageable, because as stated, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented that there are common proofs of liability on this claim. Therefore, the Court finds that the underpaid meal period premium class is properly certified. Defendants' written policies documents appear to suggest that Defendants did not authorize a second rest break in some circumstances where California law requires a second rest break. As stated above, a single common question can suffice to satisfy Rule 23's commonality requirement. The Court also finds that Rule 23(b) is met for this claim, because questions common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is a superior method for resolution of the controversy. The Court does not find that this class is unmanageable, because as stated, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented that there are common proofs of liability and the class-wide litigation will promote greater efficiency. The focus of the action will be on the conduct of the Defendants and their policy as opposed to the conduct of individual class members. Therefore, the Court finds that the rest break class is properly certified. Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq. -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq. -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Raul Perez, Esq. -- Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat, Esq. -- rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler, Esq. -- Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- and Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq. -- matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- of Capstone Law APC; Monica Balderrama, Esq. -- MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com -- of Initiative Legal Group APC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Sandrika Medlock Morgan Patricia Forsey, Esq. -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Nora K. Stiles, Esq. -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- and Tracey Adano Kennedy, Esq. -- tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Taco Bell Corp., a California corporation TIMBERTECH LTD: CPG's Partial Motion to Dismiss Denied ------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied Defendant CPG International LLC's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint in the captioned case JOHN M. PERUTO, et al., Plaintiff, v. TIMBERTECH LTD, et al., Defendant, Civil Action No.: 15-2166 (JBS/JS), (D. N.J.) Plaintiffs John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto began purchasing and installing TimberTech's XLM decking product line for their second home in Margate, New Jersey in May 2012. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint on February 11, 2015 against TimberTech Ltd. (TimberTech) and CPG International LLC (CPG) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant marketed XLM decking as a high- quality, low-maintenance, and long-lasting alternative to traditional wooden decking materials, but that XLM decking is prone to discoloration and fading soon after installation. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), and declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 25, 2015, CPG removed this action to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1446, 1453 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Defendant previously filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. In their opposition to CPG's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment claims. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim based on the Limited Warranty, Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim based on an omission, and Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file an amended complaint curing deficiencies. In particular, the Court found that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim failed to adequately allege an ascertainable loss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2015. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended NJCFA claim. Defendant argues that although Plaintiffs have amended their complaint to adequately allege an ascertainable loss, they still have demonstrated neither unlawful conduct by CPG nor causation. In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/bsDFvTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied Defendant CPG's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. Defendant does not seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim on an affirmative misrepresentation theory; even disregarding the marketing statements this Court previously found to be mere puffery, the Amended Complaint undeniably describes assurances of fact on which Plaintiffs and their contractor could have reasonably relied. Rather, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim should be dismissed "to the extent Plaintiffs seek to proceed on an omission theory" because they have not shown with enough particularity "that the defendant acted with knowledge." Plaintiffs, the judge said, are correct that the Rule permits intent and knowledge to be alleged generally. Plaintiffs may not rest upon conclusory statements to generally allege knowledge and intent any more than they can for any other element of a claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. "Even under a relaxed application of Rule 9(b), boilerplate and conclusory allegations will not suffice." Judge Simandle explained that the amended complaint alleges plausible grounds for knowledge and intent to omit accurate information about the product's shortcomings, based upon their receiving reports of defects and failures of the product's essential characteristics. One can readily infer that the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant received reports of premature wear and discoloration in this product, and that Plaintiffs' decking suffered from the same deficiency, and yet Defendant continued to sell the product without improving it, while maintaining silence about the deficiencies that were contradicted by its sales materials touting their resistance to fading and wear. Plaintiffs have thus adequately alleged a claim under the NJCFA under an affirmative misrepresentation theory. The Amended Complaint identifies actionable unlawful conduct, an ascertainable loss, and causation. The Court will deny Defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim under an affirmative misrepresentation theory. Christopher Michael Placitella, Esq. and Michael Coren, Esq. of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiffs John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto Lorna A. Dotro, Esq. -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- and Mark K. Silver, Esq. -- msilver@coughlinduffy.com -- of Coughlin Duffy LLP serve as counsel for Defendant CPG International LLC TORCHMARK CORP: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Proctor" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit against Torchmark Corporation's stays in Oklahoma federal district court after the court denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case, Torchmark said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Litigation was filed on February 10, 2015 against Torchmark subsidiary, Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma District Court (Proctor v. Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-2015-838) asserting claims for breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing and for false representation, deceit and conversion in connection with Globe's denial of plaintiff's claim on a life insurance policy for non-payment of premium. Plaintiff, who had alleged that Globe had improperly retained 12 monthly premium payments on a policy that was treated as lapsed or not returned to in-force status, seeks actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, costs and other relief. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to add allegations of conversion and civil theft on behalf of a purported class of Globe's U.S. policyholders who had paid premiums retained by Globe when their policies were lapsed and not reinstated at the time of the premium payments. Globe removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 15-CV-0070-M) on July 10, 2015 and filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2015. The Court denied plaintiff's Motion to Remand back to state court on October 26, 2015, but will allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert a putative class action in federal court. TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: March 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ:TSEM) between April 30, 2012 and January 13, 2016. You are hereby notified that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tower Semiconductor between April 30, 2012 and January 13, 2016, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/tower-semiconductor or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the value of net tangible assets of the acquisition of a fabrication facility from Micron Technology Inc. was artificially inflated; (2) the value of net tangible assets of the acquisition of 51% of TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co., Ltd. from Panasonic Corporation was artificially inflated; (3) Tower's Series F Debentures were incorrectly accounted for to understate debt; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Tower's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in Tower Semiconductor you have until March 22, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. TRICO BANCSHARES: Stipulated Judgment Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Shasta County Superior Court has granted final approval of a Stipulated Judgement concluding a shareholder class action lawsuit. On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief. On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties would negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement dated May 18, 2015 that is subject to customary conditions, including final court approval following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders. At a hearing in Shasta County Superior Court on October 26, 2015, the Court approved and entered a final Stipulated Judgement concluding the case and dismissing all the named individual director defendants. The court awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in fees. A liability related to this potential settlement was established by North Valley Bancorp prior to its acquisition by TriCo on October 3, 2015, and that liability was recorded by TriCo as part of its purchase accounting of North Valley Bancorp on October 3, 2015. TRICO BANCSHARES: Bank Denies Claims in Butte Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares' bank subsidiariy denies the charges alleged in the first amended complaint in a class action lawsuit, TriCo said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California during the preceding four years. On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint expanding the class definition to all current and formerly hourly- paid or non-exempt branch employees employed by Defendant's within the State of California at any time during the period from September 15, 2010 to final judgment. The Bank has responded to the First Amended Complaint, denying the charges, and the Bank intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and liability. TRICO BANCSHARES: Denies Allegations in Sacramento Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares and its bank subsidiary deny the charges alleged in a class action lawsuit by a personal banker, TriCo said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for the Bank during the time period beginning October 18, 2013 through the date of the filing of this action. The Company and the Bank have responded to the First Amended Complaint, deny the charges, and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and liability. UNITED STATES: Tribe Can't Apply Equitable Tolling, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Gregory and Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, report that an American Indian tribe that mistakenly relied on a related class action to delay suing the federal government isn't entitled to a pause on the statute of limitations on its claims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The court, in a unanimous decision Jan. 25 by Justice Samuel A. Alito, ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin's litigation mistake didn't justify applying equitable tolling to the tribe's claims under the Indian Self-Determination Act for contract support costs under the Contract Disputes Act. The ruling "limits the potential for statutes of limitations to be equitably tolled, making compliance with the time limits to present claims and to file suit even more important," Wendy Gerwick Couture, a professor at University of Idaho Law in Boise who has written about equitable tolling, told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 25 e-mail. "Menominee is a reminder that, just because a party's strategic decision was rational at the time it was made does not mean that the Court will intervene in equity if, with the benefit of hindsight, it was the wrong decision," she said. "This raises the stakes substantially for parties who are considering whether to opt out of class actions, such as institutional investors considering whether to opt out of securities class actions," Ms. Couture said. Narrow Ruling But, at least related to Indian law, a prior assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 25 e-mail that the specific issue in this case "is narrow and not likely to repeat." "Significant new claims related to these kinds of contracts have not continued to develop" after a change in policy under the Obama Administration, Kevin K. Washburn said. "Similar suits are not likely to arise again, for Menominee or any other tribes," he said. "Moreover, the tribe retains the majority of their claims, including those that were within the six year statute of limitations when they filed in 2004 and those that arose thereafter." Mr. Washburn's tenure at Interior ended in December. He is now a professor of Indian Law at the University of New Mexico School of Law in Albuquerque. Acting on Bad Advice A separate putative class action involving the tribe's claims failed to receive class certification. The tribe then missed the six-year statutory deadline for its individual claims which sought to recover overhead costs for the tribe's provision of health-care services to members under a federal contract (16 CLASS 1366, 12/11/15). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the tribe's "legal misunderstandings and tactical mistakes" in not timely filing its claims didn't constitute "external obstacles" that would justify tolling under Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010). Holland allows for equitable tolling if a party shows that it has 1) diligently pursued its rights, and 2) "some extraordinary circumstance" prevented timely filing. No 'Extraordinary Circumstance.' The tribe called this test "overly rigid." But the Supreme Court reaffirmed it's holding in Holland that the two requirements are "distinct elements" that both must be satisfied. The court also reaffirmed that the second prong is met only where the circumstances are beyond the litigant's control. Bad advice from the tribe's class counsel didn't constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" that would excuse the tribe's failure to meet the deadline, the court said. The tribe's mistaken reliance on the putative class action "was not an obstacle beyond its control," the court said. Geoffrey D. Strommer of Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker LLP in Portland, Ore., argued for the tribe. Ilana H. Eisenstein of the Department of Justice in Washington argued for the federal government. VANGUARD NATURAL: Suits Filed in Texas State Court Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, that class action lawsuits filed in a state court in Texas have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In May and June 2015, alleged Eagle Rock Energy unitholders filed two derivative and class action lawsuits in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the "state lawsuits"). An additional class action lawsuit was filed in June by another alleged Eagle Rock Energy unitholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "federal lawsuit" and, together with the state lawsuits, the "lawsuits"). "The federal lawsuit names Eagle Rock Energy, Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., our general partner, our board of directors, Vanguard, and Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard, as defendants," the Company said. "The federal lawsuit alleges a variety of causes of action challenging the Merger, including alleged breaches of fiduciary or contractual duties and alleged aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of duty," the Company said. "The federal lawsuit alleges that the Merger (a) provided inadequate consideration to our unitholders, (b) was not subject to minority unitholder approval due to the voting and support agreement between Vanguard, Natural Gas Partners VIII, L.P., and certain of its affiliates, and (c) contained contractual terms (e.g., the no-solicitation, matching rights, and termination fee provisions) that may have dissuaded other potential merger partners from making alternative proposals. The federal lawsuit also alleges that defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a- 9 promulgated thereunder. In general, the federal lawsuit alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (a) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections, (b) the analyses of the Merger conducted by Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial advisors, and (c) the background of the Merger. Based on these allegations, the federal lawsuit seeks to have the Merger rescinded. The federal lawsuit also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees." "On November 11, 2015, the state lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Prior to their dismissal, the state lawsuits alleged similar claims against the same defendants as the federal lawsuit, except that the state lawsuits did not allege claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Partnership believes that the lawsuits are without merit." VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to "Hurwitz" Case Not Yet Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, that the Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to a class action lawsuit filed by Robert Hurwitz has not yet been set. These class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the merger by purported LRR Energy, L.P. unitholders: * Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087- VCG, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 3, 2015 ("Miller Lawsuit") * Christopher Tiberio v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-39864, filed in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas on July 10, 2015 ("Tiberio Lawsuit") * Eddie Hammond v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015- 40154, filed in the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas on July 13, 2015 ("Hammond Lawsuit") * Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-2017, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on July 14, 2015 ("Krieger Lawsuit") * Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-UNA, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 18, 2015 (the "Hurwitz Lawsuit"). "The Miller Lawsuit, Tiberio Lawsuit, Hammond Lawsuit, and Krieger Lawsuit were filed against us, our General Partner, our Board, Vanguard, Merger Sub and the other parties to the Merger Agreement. The Hurwitz Lawsuit is filed against our Board, Vanguard, and Merger Sub (the "Defendants")," the Company said. On July 17, 2015, the Krieger Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On July 23, 2015 the Miller Lawsuit was also voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On July 28, 2015 the Tiberio Lawsuit and the Hammond Lawsuit were both nonsuited without prejudice. The Hurwitz Lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. "In general, the Hurwitz Lawsuit alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) the background of the Merger, (ii) the financial analyses conducted by the Partnership's and our conflicts committee's financial advisors in connection with the Merger, (iii) the Partnership's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections, and (iv) alleged conflicts of interest held by one of our financial advisors," the Company said. The Hurwitz Lawsuit seeks, among other relief, to rescind the Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff in the Hurwitz Lawsuit has not yet served the Defendants, and the Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Hurwitz Lawsuit has not yet been set. VECTOR GROUP: Ligget Group Involved in 3 Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that three actions were pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where Liggett Group LLC ("Liggett") is a named defendant as of September 30, 2015. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of limitations and federal preemption. In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a motion to stay the case and that motion was granted. In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in Kansas, a class action was commenced against cigarette manufacturers alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs sought to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in November 2001. In March 2012, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. In August 2014, plaintiffs sought review by the Kansas Supreme Court, which the court denied in June 2015, thereby concluding this litigation. Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues. Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969 should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. The trial court set the first two dates for the consolidated trials for June 13, 2016 and December 4, 2016. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. Briefing of that issue is underway. If the case proceeds against Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in less than 25 of the remaining individual cases. In addition to the cases described, numerous class actions remain certified against other cigarette manufacturers including cases alleging, among other things, that use of the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices. Adverse decisions in these cases could have a material adverse affect on Liggett's sales volume, operating income and cash flows. VECTOR GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Case Pending v. Liggett --------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that one Health Care Cost Recovery Action was pending as of September 30, 2015, against Liggett Group LLC ("Liggett"), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. American Tobacco Company, a South Dakota case filed in 1997, where the plaintiff seeks to recover damages based on various theories of recovery as a result of alleged sales of tobacco products to minors. The case is inactive. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named as defendants. The claims asserted in health care cost recovery actions vary, but can include the equitable claim of indemnity, common law claims of negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under state and federal statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust, deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under RICO. Although no specific damage amounts are typically pleaded, it is possible that requested damages might be in the billions of dollars. In these cases, plaintiffs typically assert equitable claims that the tobacco industry was "unjustly enriched" by their payment of health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking and seek reimbursement of those costs. Relief sought by some, but not all, plaintiffs include punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees. VECTOR GROUP: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Set for trial Thru Sept. 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of September 30, 2015, there were nine Engle progeny cases scheduled for trial through September 30, 2016, where Liggett (and/or the Company) is a named defendant. Trial dates are, however, subject to change. In Shulman, an Engle progeny case, trial commenced October 16, 2015. VIVINT SOLAR: Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Honorable Katherine B. Forrest issued a 42-page Opinion & Order granting that motion to dismiss on Dec. 10, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://goo.gl/WSDTLyat no charge. In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015. On May 6, 2015, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the complaint. VIVINT SOLAR: Class Suits Filed Related to SunEdison Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is facing class action lawsuits in Delaware and Utah related to the proposed acquisition by SunEdision Inc. On July 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery State of Delaware against the Company's directors, SunEdison Inc. ("SunEdison"), and TerraForm Power ("TerraForm"), alleging that the proposed acquisition by SunEdison is unfair to the Company's stockholders. On August 7, 2015, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed in the same court alleging similar claims, and including 313, Acquisition, LLC as a named defendant. Both complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On or about September 10, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were also filed in Utah's Fourth District State Court (the "Utah Actions"), alleging similar claims to the complaints previously filed in the Delaware Chancery Court. On September 22, 2015, the Company, through counsel notified plaintiff's counsel in the Utah Actions that pursuant to the Company's Articles of Incorporation, any such derivative action was subject to exclusive jurisdiction in the Delaware Chancery Court, and accordingly, the Utah Actions should be dismissed. In the event the Utah Actions are not voluntarily dismissed, the Company anticipates the cases will ultimately be consolidated into one case. In view of the Company's indemnification obligation to its directors, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. VIVINT SOLAR: Customer Class Action filed in Kern County, Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed in September 2015 in the Kern County Superior Court of the State of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the Company's customer agreements in California. The complaint essentially alleges that certain versions of customer contracts fail to satisfy California Code provisions including home solicitation and home improvement laws. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims asserted in this matter. Although the Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, it does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. It is not possible to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this time. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Catlett" Suit Goes from Utah to MDL 2672 ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Catlett v. Volkswagen Group of America, Case No. 2:15-cv-00681, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05686-CRB to the Proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Catlett case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Deiss, Esq. Brent A. Orozco, Esq. Diana Fay Bradley, Esq. DEISS LAW PC 10 W. 100 Street, Suite 425 Salt Lake City, CA 84101 Telephone: (801) 433 0226 E-mail: adeiss@deisslaw.com borozco@deisslaw.com dbradley@deisslaw.com - and - Christopher B Sullivan, Esq. PRICE PARKINSON AND KERR 5742 West Harold Gatty Drive SLC, UT 84116 Telephone: (801) 530 2900 E-mail: sullivan@ppktrial.com The Defendants are represented by: Dan R. Larsen, Esq. Kimberly Neville, Esq. Kristen E. Olsen, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY (UT) 136 S. Main Street, Suite 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1685 E-mail: larsen.dan@dorsey.com neville.kimberly@dorsey.com olsen.kristen@dorsey.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Feldman" Suit Transferred to MDL 2672 -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Feldman Et Al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02894, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-CV-05688-CRB to the proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Feldman case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan W. Bernstein, Esq. Scott Daniel Forney, Esq. BERNSTEIN AND FELDMAN PA 900 Bestgate Rd., Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 573 0017 Facsimile: (410) 573 0049 The Defendant is represented by: John L. Hone, Esq. Ronald G. DeWald, Esq. LIPSHULTZ AND HONE CHTD 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 108 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587 8500 Facsimile: (301) 495 9759 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gall" Suit Moved from Iowa to MDL 2672 --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gall v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00106, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15- cv-05664-CRB to the Proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Gall case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay Madison Smith, Esq. SMITH AND MCELWAIN LAW OFFICE 505 Fifth St., Suite 530 Sioux City, IA 51101 Telephone: (712) 255 8094 E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com - and - Kevin Daniel Stanley, Esq. Lauren Elise McClain, Esq. HUMPHREY FARRINGTON AND MCCLAIN PC 221 W. Lexington, Suite 400 P.O. Box 900 Independence, MO 64051 Telephone: (816) 836 5050 Facsimile: (816) 836 8966 E-mail: kds@hfmlegal.com lem@hfmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: David N. May, Esq. BRADSHAW FOWLER PROCTOR & FAIRGROVE 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 3700 Des Moines, IA 50309-8004 Telephone: (515) 246 5888 Facsimile: (515) 246 5808 E-mail: may.david@bradshawlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Scoggins" Suit Goes to MDL 2672 -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Amy Campion Scoggins v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., Case No. BC599850, was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09567-PSG-AFM to the proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra T Steele, Esq. Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq. GIRARDI AND KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977 0211 Facsimile: (213) 481 1554 E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com tgirardi@girardikeese.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq. John Nadolenco, Esq. Neil M Soltman, Esq. Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229 9500 Facsimile: (213) 625 0248 E-mail: aedelstein@mayerbrown.com jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com nsoltman@mayerbrown.com mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Smith" Suit Moved from Illinois to MDL 2672 -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Smith V. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01053, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05683-CRB to the Proceeding. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Niemeyer, Esq. NIEMEYER GREBEL & KRUSE LLC 10 S. Broadway, Suite 1125 St Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241 1919 Facsimile: (314) 665 3017 - and - Trent Miracle, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 259 2222 Facsimile: (618) 259 2251 E-mail: tmiracle@simmonsfirm.com - and - Michael S. Kruse, Esq. NIEMEYER GREBEL & KRUSE LLC 10 S. Broadway, Suite 1125 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241 1919 Facsimile: (314) 665 3017 - and - Paul J. Hanly Jr., Esq. HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN & SHERIDAN LLP 112 Madison Avenue-7th Floor New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784 6401 Facsimile: (212) 784 6420 E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com The Defendant is represented by: James K. Toohey, Esq. JOHNS & BELL LTD 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com - and - Brian C. Langs, Esq. Garrett L. Boehm Jr., Esq. JOHNSON & BELL LTD 33 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 372 0770 E-mail: langs@jbltd.com boehmg@jbltd.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Stanley" Suit Goes from Colo. to MDL 2672 ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Stanley et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02113, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05650-CRB to the proceeding. This class action concerns the intentional installation of defeat devices on over a reported 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. Defendant marketed those vehicles as environmentally-friendly cars with high fuel efficiency, performance, and very low emissions. Defendant allegedly failed to manufacture those vehicles with those attributes. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Stanley case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian Marie Fahlsing, Esq. THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 861 8800 E-mail: gfahlsing@hannonlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Esq. Michael L. O'Donnell, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202-5647 Telephone: (303) 244 1800 Facsimile: (303) 244 1879 E-mail: odonnell@wtklaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Investor Claims in Germany -------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that dozens of large shareholders in Volkswagen AG plan to sue the carmaker in a German court, seeking compensation for the plunge in its shares due to its emissions test cheating scandal. Law firm Nieding + Barth said it would lodge a case with a regional court in Brunswick (Braunschweig, seeking hundreds of millions of euros in damages on behalf of 66 institutional investors from the U.S. and Britain. "On top of that, we collected several thousands of private investors. Therefore we think we are the biggest platform for suits against Volkswagen in Germany," said Klaus Nieding of Nieding + Barth. Volkswagen's (VW) shares have lost almost a third of their value, or about 22 billion euros ($24 billion), since it admitted in September to misleading U.S. regulators about emissions with the help of on-board engine control software. The law firm plans to use so-called capital market model claims, a German legal procedure which--for lack of U.S. style class-action lawsuits--uses court rulings won by individual investors as templates to set damages for others that are equally affected. VW, which declined to comment, is facing a legal onslaught on several fronts. U.S. owners of vehicles with higher-than-stated emissions are expected to seek billions of dollars in damages, while the U.S. Justice Department has sued VW for up to $46 billion under the Clean Air Act. Nieding + Barth said it would argue that VW had been aware of its violation of diesel emissions rules before its first statement on the matter in September and should have informed the public earlier. Germany's Bafin watchdog said its probe of whether VW breached disclosure rules was so complex it would likely take several more months. Bentham Europe, a litigation finance group backed by U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management and Australian-listed IMF Bentham, said in November it was in contact with VW's top 200 investors about launching a damages claim in Germany as soon as February. German lawyer Andreas Tilp in October filed a lawsuit on behalf of retail investors. The Financial Times first reported the planned litigation in Germany. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: South Korean Car Owners to File Class Suit in US ------------------------------------------------------------------ KBS World Radio reports that South Korean owners of Volkswagen's 3.0-liter diesel vehicles plan to file a class-action suit against the German carmaker in the United States. Local law firm Barun said on Jan. 26 that it will file a class- action suit in the U.S. first and then in South Korea. Barun explained its decision came as Volkswagen acknowledged to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) that its 3.0-liter diesel cars were part of the emissions-cheating scheme in addition to 2.0-liter ones. The law firm added that as the legal suits concerning Volkswagen's 3.0-liter diesel cars are already under way in the U.S., it only needs to convene the South Korean victims in order to file a class-action suit in the U.S. Around 85-thousand Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche 3.0-liter diesels sold in the U.S. were revealed to be equipped with software engineered to cheat on emissions tests. In South Korea, around 100-thousand 3.0-liter diesel cars manufactured by Volkswagen and its affiliates are presumed to have the illegal devices. WALT DISNEY: Former Employees File Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Mohammad Omar, writing for LearnBonds, reports that Walt Disney Co has been accused by two former tech employees of replacing domestic staff with less costly immigrant workers living in the US on H-1B visas. The two employees, Leo Perrero and Dena Moore, filed class-action lawsuits against the firm in Tampa federal court, Florida on January 25. The lawsuits also name HCL Inc. and Cognizant Technologies among the defendants. Disney abused immigration system, says attorney Mr. Perrero and Ms. Moore are among more than 250 Disney workers who were laid off around a year ago from the IT section of Walt Disney World--the Florida theme park complex. Mr. Perrero claims he was fired despite his high performance ratings and was asked to train his replacement -- an immigrant worker -- during his final months. This was made mandatory by the firm in order to be eligible for bonuses and severance packages. According to the lawsuits, the firms are in violation of federal law as they mislead employees while filling out firms to sponsor workers for the visas. Both HCL Inc. and Cognizant had claimed under oath that the working situation for 'similarly situated employees would not be adversely affected'. "Every time they file these, they are lying and falsifying documents. Disney is aware there are these requirements and Cognizant and HCL are lying," says Attorney Sara Blackwell, who is representing the plaintiffs. Ms. Blackwell states that the lawsuits aims to "kick them [outsourcing companies] at their business model, to stop them from systemically abusing the immigration system". She also alleges that Walt Disney Co is conspiring with the outsourcing firms to fill speciality positions with low cost foreign labor. In November 2015, Ms. Blackwell also brought filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of more than a dozen former Disney employees. The employees, who were dismissed earlier in the year in January, were replaced by overseas workers, mostly from India on H-1B visas. The dismissed employees claimed that they faced discrimination on the basis of their American citizenship and age. Complying with law, companies respond Meanwhile, Walt Disney Co has responded that the lawsuits are "based on an unsustainable legal theory and are a wholesale misrepresentation of the facts." The firm claims that it hired back more than 100 people into other roles and offered Moore another position at comparable pay. It says that H-1B visas are used by many employers in the US and the firm has complied with all applicable employment laws. Cognizant has also issued a statement saying that it "fully complies with all U.S. regulations regarding H-1B visas. The outsourcing firm stated that it has a 'robust internal compliance team that ensures our practices are not merely compliant with existing laws in letter and spirit, but also adhere to best practices." However, as per the lawsuits, Mr. Perrero was told by Walt Disney Co that he would not be able to work at the firm for at least one year, while other were asked to wait for one year before they could work with the company again. Ms. Moore, who gave interviews for several positions at the company, was reportedly told that the jobs were only for H-1B holders or foreign citizens. H-1B Visas- A Hot Political Issue The H-1B visa program was created back in 1990 by the US Congress. Under the program, a limited number of foreign workers in "specialized jobs" were allowed to work in the US to address a paucity of American workers. Currently, the program has an annual cap of 85,000 six-year visas, though some exemptions are allowed for people employed in universities. The H-1B visa has become a burning political topic in the US, especially with immigration being a key topic of discussion in the presidential debates. Companies such as Facebook Inc have voiced their support for increases in the number of H-1B visas. This has been endorsed by the group Partnership for a New American Economy, of which Walt Disney Co CEO Bob Iger is co-chairman, and US Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, a Republican presidential candidate. Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has introduced a bill that calls for a cut in the number. Earlier in June, Nelson had asked for a Department of Homeland Security investigation into H-1B visas following reports of layoffs of Walt Disney workers. In December 2015, the Obama administration proposed steps to help some high-skilled, foreign workers to remain in the country without being tied to their employers. Under the new rules, certain visa holders would be allowed to switch jobs more easily while waiting for a green card. Critics lambasted the move, terming it as an abuse of US immigration law. Workers like Mr. Perrero are pessimistic about the future of US citizens like himself. He recently featured in an ad by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group opposing any increase in H-1B visas. "I don't have to be angry or cause drama. But they are just doing things to save a buck, and it's making Americans poor," said Mr. Perrero to the New York Times. WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Shanklin Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the claims in the second amended complaint in the class action filed by Alex Shanklin. On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), naming the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina International, Ltd. and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment and are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs have retained substitute counsel, who has filed a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of Wilhelmina and the other model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Second Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss was to be fully briefed by December 2015. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. WINDSOR, CANADA: Legal Fees in Bingo Suit Reach $1.7-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------- Dave Battagello, writing for Windsor Star, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed against Windsor and Tecumseh has cost the municipalities a combined $1.7 million in legal fees, so far. "This litigation file has gone on for nine years," Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens said of the $850,000 share paid by the city. "No doubt, it's a lot of money -- money that could have been directed to roads, sewers or better projects for taxpayers. "But we are being sued and have to defend the best interests of the city." The ALS Society launched legal action against the city starting in 2007 as part of the so-called bingo lawsuit, while Tecumseh faced a similar challenge from the Belle River District Minor Hockey Association. Both municipalities are accused of collecting an excessive amount of license fees for charity bingos or other fundraising gaming events. Under the lawsuit, the court has previously determined every organization that ever paid for a gaming license from either municipality could be entitled to refunds of every fee paid dating back to 1993. That could potentially cost the two municipalities a combined $80 million if they are forced to return the fees. In the initials stages of the lawsuit, Mr. Dilkens said the city and town decided to share legal representation and costs, rather than hire two separate law firms. Toronto lawyer Scott Hutchison was retained to represent the municipalities. "At the end of the day, we don't think we have done anything wrong," Mr. Dilkens said. "But the stakes here are huge. This was not going to go away. So with a lawsuit of this magnitude, you need (lawyers) who know what they are doing." Despite the high cost of legal fees to date, the lawsuit is nowhere near complete. For nearly a decade, the case has been mired in pre-trial motions and actions. The latest motion played out during a high-profile hearing on Jan. 25 when lawyers for the charities asked the court to stop an "opt-out" campaign launched in January by Windsor and Tecumseh. The municipalities are urging charities to back out of the lawsuit. Legislation in Ontario around class-action lawsuits automatically includes every party impacted, unless they ask to opt out. The court in December granted a 120 opt-out period, which lasts until May 15. Mr. Dilkens was hopeful the actual trial will finally start soon afterward -- or at least some time this year. The London-based Lerners legal firm represents the charities. The mayor would not comment on what Lerners stands to gain from the bingo lawsuit case. "My experience based on my practice in law is that it would not be uncommon for a legal team for the plaintiff to receive between 30 to 40 per cent (of a contingency file)," said Mr. Dilkens. "But in any class-action case, the judge always decides what fees are reasonable at the end of the matter." WINDSOR, CANADA: Foundations Asked to Opt Out of Bingo Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Chiasson, writing for CBC News, reports that the mayors of Windsor and Tecumseh launched a public awareness campaign urging charitable organizations to opt out of class-action lawsuits that could leave the two communities on the hook for $70 million. Launched by the ALS Society of Essex County and Belle River District Minor Hockey Association, the lawsuits allege Windsor and Tecumseh charged excessive fees for bingo licenses. Both the ALS Society and the Community Gaming and Entertainment Group are listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Windsor. In the suit against Tecumseh, the hockey association is listed as a plaintiff alongside the Essex County Dancers Incorporated as well as the Community Gaming and Entertainment Group. The groups are seeking compensation for every organization that paid license fees for bingo and charitable gaming events dating back to 1993. Every charitable organization that paid the fees is automatically included in the lawsuit unless they specifically opt out, according to a joint news release issued by the two mayors. Tecumseh Mayor Gary McNamara recognizes the daunting challenge of trying to kill the lawsuit. "I believe there are many charitable organizations across our communities that really are unaware of what's happening," he said. "We want to make sure that all of the charitable organizations that have had at least one bingo since 1993 are aware of what this means." Defining license fees The lawsuits claim the excessive bingo fees are actually illegal taxes and every penny charged to the organizations should be repaid. The lawsuits, filed against each municipality by lawyers from Lerners LLP, are almost identical and will likely be seen as test cases for other cities, said McNamara, who is also president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. If successful, the lawsuits could redefine how local governments charge for bingo licenses. Many more legal battles could be on their way in other communities, according to McNamara. "All municipalities in Ontario that license and operate bingos and charitable organizations would be subject to this lawsuit eventually," McNamara said. Both municipalities plan to fight the lawsuits to the end. "We believe those are not excessive taxes," McNamara said. "Those are our fees that are required to administer ... the licences." Spreading the word Spreading the word to each organization will be a challenge, considering Windsor alone has more than 900 different groups that have paid for bingo licenses over the past 23 years. Neither municipality can meet with the groups directly without someone from Lerners present, according to Dilkens. "But we are allowed to do a campaign like this during the opt-out period,so that's why you see [us on] radio, TV, Internet and social media really trying to draw attention to this issue," he said. A successful lawsuit would financially affect the communities come budget time, considering Tecumseh would be on the hook for $7 million and Windsor could end up possibly paying back more than $60 million. Dilkens used city council's recent decision to support a $100 million levy for a new mega-hospital as an example of how long it takes to generate that kind of cash. "It would have a real significant impact on the city of Windsor and its taxpayers for a long time," he said of the potential of having to pay out millions of dollars. Response to opt-out campaign The head of the Windsor Regional Hospital Foundation wants to remove the organization's name from the lawsuit. The foundation board of directors plans to meet in the coming days to discuss their options. They discovered they were part of the lawsuit, explained executive director Ron Foster. When they meet, Foster will likely recommend the foundation opt out. "We don't feel that the fees overall were excessive," he said. "I think we would recommend opting out, but that is the board's decision." Lawyers from Lerners LLP, the firm that filed the lawsuit, don't approve of the mayors asking organizations to opt out. "I don't think it's appropriate," lawyer Peter Kryworuk told Radio-Canada. He did not want to comment about the specifics of the lawsuit, but said it would still go ahead, even if groups opt out. YAHOO! INC: Violates Investment Company Act, Union Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Yahoo's investment securities make up 90% of the company's value, so it must register as an investment company, a union pension fund claims in a shareholders federal class action in San Jose. Lead plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Pension Fund claims Yahoo's board of directors and top executives are violating the Investment Company Act of 1940. It also accuses the individual defendants of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. The pension fund wants Yahoo to fire its executive officers, including CEO Marissa Mayer, and its entire board. Yahoo, founded in 1994, describes itself on its corporate website as "the world's largest start-up," which has "grown into a company that helps you find what you're looking for on any Internet- connected device." The company is globally known for its many Internet-related services, including Yahoo Search, Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Messenger, and Yahoo Groups. But the most significant and valuable aspects of its business are its publicly traded investments, the union says. "Yahoo's own financial statements, since 2013, show that the overwhelming majority of its assets, revenues, and income are derived from its investment business, not from its core business operations," the complaint states. Income from Yahoo's operations for 2013 was only 32.7% of its total net income attributable, while income from investments accounted for 67.3%, the shareholders say. The numbers were even more "shocking" in 2014, with 1.2% coming from operations income, compared to a "staggering" 98.8% for investment income, according to the complaint. Yahoo signed a joint venture with Softbank Corp. in 1996 and formed Yahoo Japan, a publicly traded company that is majority- owned by Softbank and meant to establish and manage a local version of Yahoo's properties in Japan. Yahoo holds approximately 2 billion shares of Yahoo Japan common stock, valued at $7.4 billion, which represents approximately 25% of Yahoo's market capitalization and almost 20% of Yahoo's assets, according to the complaint. The company in 2005 bought approximately 46% of the outstanding common stock of Alibaba.com Corp., China's biggest online marketplace and online payment system. Yahoo holds approximately 384 million shares of Alibaba common stock valued at about $27 billion, which represents 89% of Yahoo's market capitalization and 70% of its assets, the complaint states. The combined value of Yahoo's financial stake in Yahoo Japan and Alibaba exceeds Yahoo's total market value by more than $7 billion and represents 90% of Yahoo's current assets, according to the complaint. "As a company whose assets are and have been primarily invested in publicly traded securities, Yahoo is an investment company under the ICA [Investment Company Act]. Yahoo has, however, failed to register as an investment company as required by the ICA, and is otherwise failing to comply with the structural limitations and the investor protection mandates of the ICA," the shareholders say. Yahoo announced in January 2015 that it would spin off all of its remaining holdings in Alibaba into a newly formed independent registered investment company called SpinCo, which the complaint calls "an apparent effort to remedy this ICA violation." Yahoo called off the spinoff in December, opting to try a reverse spinoff, which would see Yahoo's assets -- other than the Alibaba stake - placed into a newly formed company, the stock of which would be distributed pro rata to Yahoo shareholders. Yahoo's stock has continued to decline since its announcement that the Alibaba spinoff would not happen. Yahoo has not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, so it's operating illegally as an unregistered investment company, the shareholders say. They say Yahoo should oust all its board members and current and former officers who have "breached their fiduciary duties to Yahoo and its stockholders by causing Yahoo to illegally operate as an unregistered investment company and exposing shareholders to potential catastrophic liability." The union seeks class certification, disgorgement, permission to pursue two of the four counts derivatively, and damages for ICA violations, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. A Yahoo spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending litigation. The shareholders are represented by James Wagstaffe with Kerr & Wagstaffe, in San Francisco, who did not respond to a request for comment Jan. 28. He may be reached at: James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. Kerr & Wagstaffe 100 Spear St San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-371-8500 * Ark. State Justices Respond to Campaign Donation Questions ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Hammersly, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that five of the seven Arkansas Supreme Court justices answered questions or issued statements regarding their campaign donations and court decisions. Chief Justice Howard Brill, appointed in 2015 to fill an unexpired term, has not run for office and declined to be interviewed. Here's more of what Arkansas Supreme Court justices and former justices had to say: Justice Karen Baker Justice Baker wrote that she has heard 28 class-action cases since joining the high court in January 2011. Campaign finance records show her 2010 and 2014 campaigns received $66,000 total from four class-action law firms that have donated to Supreme Court campaigns in the past 12 years. The firms are Keil & Goodson of Texarkana; Nix Patterson & Roach of Daingerfield, Texas; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor, Pa., and Jason Roselius of Oklahoma City, who has been affiliated with several law firms in the past decade. Others also have donated significant amounts to other justices' campaigns: the Crowley Norman firm of Houston, Texas, and attorneys Reggie Whitten and Michael Burrage of Oklahoma, who were affiliated with multiple firms over a decade. Justice Baker said she has followed procedural rules regarding class-action cases, as well as court precedents. The rules governing class-action cases have "been the standard of the court for many years," Justice Baker wrote. Justice Paul Danielson Justice Danielson said he shares ethics experts' concerns about campaign money and judicial elections, but said, "That's news to me," when told that his campaign finance reports showed a total $23,500 from Keil & Goodson and Nix Patterson in 2006 and 2008. "You may see a trend now, but that doesn't mean we could see it back then. I've talked to other judges. It wasn't common knowledge. It wasn't on our radar," said Justice Danielson, who is retiring at the end of this year. Justice Danielson said he has no idea why the class-action law firms donated to his campaigns. "Sometimes people support you because they like you," he said. "Sometimes it's because they don't like your opponent." Justice Courtney Goodson Justice Goodson, whose 2010 campaign accepted $142,500 from the six class-action law firms, sent a short response to the newspaper's written questions: "I believe that judges should be accountable to the voters and that the Supreme Court belongs to the people. That's why, as a justice, I take extraordinary measures to ensure that the extensive rules and guidelines established by the Court and the committee on judicial ethics are closely followed." Justice Josephine Hart Justice Hart did not respond to the newspaper's calls or letters. Her 2012 campaign reported $22,000 from Keil & Goodson, Nix Patterson, Crowley Norman and Kessler Topaz. She was with the unanimous majority in two decisions in 2012 and 2013 that favored donor law firms, including Keil & Goodson and Nix Patterson, court records show. She disqualified herself, stating no reason, from two Keil & Goodson cases in 2015. Justice Robin Wynne Justice Wynne responded to the newspaper's questions through a campaign manager, Linda Napper. She said Justice Wynne had no knowledge of who donated to his campaign. His 2014 campaign reported $25,000 from Keil & Goodson, Nix Patterson, Kessler Topaz and Jason Roselius. Justice Wynne recused in 2015 from two class-action proceedings involving donor firms. He did not state the reasons. Justice Rhonda Wood Elected in 2014, Wood said she has taken part in just one opinion involving the donor law firms, Shelter Insurance v. Goodner (CV- 15-111), in December. A five-justice majority of Danielson, Justice Baker and three special justices found in favor of the plaintiffs represented by class-action attorney John Goodson and co-counsels. Justices Wood and Brill dissented. Justices Wynne, Hart and Courtney Goodson recused. Before the Shelter decision, Justice Wood wrote in an email that her decisions in other class-action cases show she analyzes all cases fully and does not have any inherent bias. Justice Wood's 2014 campaign reported $17,000 from Nix Patterson and Kessler Topaz. Her biggest donor group was the nursing home industry, which contributed more than $70,000 to her campaign, according to campaign contribution records. Nursing home operators in Arkansas also are big group donors to political races, including the Supreme Court. Justice Wood ran unopposed and returned the nursing home contributions, campaign records show. Retired Justice Jim Gunter "All of the cases I'm familiar with were looked at objectively," said Justice Gunter, who retired from the Arkansas Supreme Court in early 2013. He avoided knowing who his donors were, he said, and wasn't aware his 2004 campaign had reported $27,610 from Keil & Goodson and Nix Patterson attorneys and family members. Justice Gunter said his campaign followed state laws for contributions to candidates, including Arkansas' maximum contribution then of $1,000 per candidate per election. A former prosecutor and judge in Texarkana, Justice Gunter said he had known members of John Goodson's family for years. Retired Justice Donald Corbin was the only other justice who said he was a longtime acquaintance of attorneys or family members with Keil & Goodson and other donor firms. * Fifth Circuit to Tackle Class Action Waiver Issue in 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelline Linton, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, reports that arbitration agreements are practical tools that help employers protect confidential information and avoid the costs associated with traditional litigation. They can also be an extremely effective mechanism for employers to reduce exposure to risky employment litigation and potentially abusive collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Nevertheless, since its 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 184, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has consistently maintained that the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") prohibits arbitration agreements that require employees to waive the right to pursue labor-related class and collective actions -- despite provisions allowing workers to opt out of, or into, the waivers. Since D.R. Horton, state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected the Board's stance and upheld class and collective action waivers on the basis that the NLRA or FLSA fails to contain a congressional mandate for an employee's right to engage in collective actions; therefore, the clear mandate of the Federal Arbitration Act in favor of arbitration prevails. In 2013, the Fifth Circuit outright overturned the Board's precedent-setting D.R. Horton decision on appeal (D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013). The Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits likewise found D.R. Horton unpersuasive (Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013); Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 734 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2013); Walthour v. Chipio Windshield Repair, 745 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2014)). Instead of the Board seeking review with the U.S. Supreme Court, it circumvented the Circuits and issued a second decision in Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB 72 (2014), to rehabilitate its D.R. Horton standards. On October 26, 2015, the Fifth Circuit reversed Murphy Oil on appeal (Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 14-60800 (5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2015)) (and the NLRB's en banc petition was denied without recorded dissent). The Board now has 90 days from that decision to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. In the meantime, the NLRB has held firm despite the Fifth Circuit's recent reversal. In 2015, the Board issued 35 published decisions that found arbitration agreements unlawful based on the D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil principles. The Board issued 15 of those rulings in the second half of December alone. The Board's decisions have implicated national franchisors, such as Citigroup, 24 Hour Fitness, and Domino's Pizza. In 2016, the Fifth Circuit will again tackle the issue for a third (and fourth) time. On January 4, 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. asked the appeals court to review the Board's December 24 decision that held its class action waivers violated employees' rights, despite containing a clause that allowed employees to opt out (24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-60005 (5th Cir.)). On January 13, Employers Resource filed a petition requesting the Fifth Circuit to overturn the NLRB's December 17 ruling that the company's arbitration agreement flouted federal labor law, although the arbitration agreement did not expressly ban class or collective action arbitration proceedings (Employers Resource v. NLRB, No. 16-60034 (5th Cir.)). While the Fifth Circuit is likely to rule as it previously did, the Board has shown no immediate interest in petitioning for Supreme Court review. Short of all the circuit courts rejecting the Board's stance, only the nation's highest court can fully resolve the matter. And it appears more than likely that the Supreme Court will uphold class action waivers if (or when) given the chance. The High Court has traditionally favored arbitration and held that the Federal Arbitration Act provides broad authority to enter into and enforce arbitration agreements. Most recently, at the end of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court released an opinion reaffirming federal policy enforcing arbitration agreements -- DirecTV Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015) -- in which the Court held state law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. That being said, the NLRB will likely continue to ratchet up its aggressive stance against any arbitration agreement that limits class or collective actions for employment-related claims; however, to date, the only federal courts of appeals to consider the issue have rejected the NLRB's view. 2016 may very well be the year that marks that final showdown, as the Board's continued attacks create ample opportunity for the issue to soon appear before the nation's highest court. Bottom Line: For the foreseeable future, employers still should weigh the cost-benefit analysis of including class or collective action waivers in their arbitration agreements with employees against the possibility of one day needing to seek judicial review -- at least until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a stand. * Fla. Charities to Get Funding From Unclaimed Class-Action Funds ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attiyya Anthony, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that on Jan. 26, 12 charitable organizations from across the state each accepted checks for $144,000 at an awards ceremony at Mandel JCC at 8500 Jog Road in Boynton Beach. Six charities in Palm Beach County are among the latest philanthropic organizations to receive funding through a legal doctrine that allows unclaimed class- action funds to be donated to charity. The Kravis Center for Performing Arts in West Palm Beach, Mandel Children's Wish List of Palm Beach and Friends of Green Cay Nature Center in Boynton Beach and eight other non-profits, some based as far north as Jacksonville, received a donation. Judith Mitchell, chief executive officer of the Kravit Center for Performing Arts, said the money that her organization received will go toward expanding the organization's art program. "We are thrilled to be included," Ms. Mitchell said. "We appreciate the chance to be good stewards of this money." With the cy pres legal doctrine, lawyers have turned individual small class-action payouts into million-dollar donations for non- profits all over the nation. "Cy pres" is a doctrine that translates to "as near as possible." When it comes to class- action settlements, it means that a defendant must donate any unclaimed money to charities, rather than putting it back into their bank accounts. Patrick Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- an attorney with Dworken & Bernstein, an Ohio-based class-action law firm that specializes in cy pres, said that over the past 10 years, lawyers have awarded more than $30 million to charities using this law. He said this option isn't often exercised, simply because lawyers and judges aren't familiar with it. "Many judges and lawyers haven't dealt with class-action lawsuits and don't know that this is an option," Ms. Perotti said. "It's good because those people who don't claim their money are still helping out and their families or even themselves will benefit in some way." The most recent million-dollar payout is the result of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit in Palm Beach County. If the "cy pres" doctrine wasn't used, the $1.7 million could have gone back to the defendant. Martin Kaye, president of the Friends of Green Cay Nature Center, said that the money will go toward educating the community about the importance of the environment. "It's incredible," Mr. Kaye said. "I call [Patrick Perotti] Santa Claus." Mr. Kaye said that without the donation, the nonprofit would rely on proceeds from its gift shop and private donations. * Securities Class Action Filings Up 11% to 189 in 2015 ------------------------------------------------------- Federal securities class action litigation rose to 189 filings in 2015, an 11 percent increase over 2014 levels, according to Securities Class Action Filings -- 2015 Year in Review, a report issued by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. The market losses associated with these filings increased significantly from the depressed levels observed in 2014. The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index(TM), which calculates investor losses at the time that an alleged fraud is made public, rose 86 percent, from $57 billion in 2014 to $106 billion last year. This was the largest annual DDL increase since 2008, and was caused by the reappearance of filings with DDL values exceeding $5 billion (mega filings). Mega filings returned to previous annual levels after sinking to historic lows in 2014. The litigation exposure of IPOs has also increased since the financial crisis in 2008. "Companies on U.S. exchanges were more likely to be the target of a securities class action in 2015 than at any time since the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act took effect in the late 1990s," said John Gould, a senior vice president of Cornerstone Research. "Most measures of litigation activity increased distinctly in 2015, including filings against companies headquartered in China and other Asian countries." "To understand the 2015 data one must appreciate the remarkably low level of 2014 activity," said Professor Joseph Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and former SEC Commissioner. "Securities class actions are driven by monster cases, and those cases were almost completely lacking in 2014, where not a single filing had market losses over $5 billion at the time when the alleged fraud was disclosed. Contrast that with five such cases in 2015. That's all you really need to know to explain why 2015 looks so much more active than 2014 -- but still below the peaks observed in the past." Key Trends -- The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the most filings in 2015. This sector is predominantly composed of Biotechnology, Healthcare, and Pharmaceutical firms, which collectively totaled 43 filings. -- For U.S. exchange-listed companies, 4 percent were subject to filings in 2015, up from 3.6 percent in 2014 and the third consecutive yearly increase. -- There were as many filings in the Ninth Circuit as at any time in the data period. The four largest industry subsectors by number of filings in the Ninth Circuit were Internet, Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical, and Semiconductor. Filings in the Second and Ninth Circuits together made up just over 60 percent of all filings in 2015. -- Filings against companies in the Financial sector were well below historical averages, declining from 26 in 2014 to 17 in 2015. For the first time since 2006, there were no filings against banks. -- The Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) Index(TM), a measure of market capitalization losses during the class period, increased 73 percent in 2015 to $371 billion, the largest annual dollar increase since 2007. MDL remains well below historical averages, however. -- IPOs fell from 207 in 2014 to 117 in 2015, but remained above post dot-com bubble levels. -- Beginning with the 2012 filing cohort and continuing through the 2014 filing cohort, evidence from the timing of dismissals in the first three years after filing indicates that dismissal rates have subsided. Gould and Grundfest are available to speak with the media about Securities Class Action Filings -- 2015 Year in Review. The report can be downloaded from the Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse websites. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years. The firm has 600 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) -- http://securities.stanford.edu-- is an authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 4,000 securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also contains copies of more than 45,000 complaints, briefs, filings, and other litigation- related materials filed in these cases. ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *