/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 33 Headlines AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ANTHEM INC: "Hunter" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract, Negligence APPLE INC: PCVA to Proceed with iPhone "Error 53" Class Action ATHENAHEALTH INC: May 2016 Final Approval Hearing Set ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by St. Louis Heart Center ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posted $12.8MM Gain from Class Actions BAYER: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Drug Claims Into Mass Tort BIONDILLO'S BAKERY: "Mercado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls Mortadella and Deli Meat Products BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: "Dixson" Suit Seeks Damages Under Unruh Act CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Ruling to Impact Class Action Strategy CITIBANK NA: Seeks Approval of $23M Libor Class Action Settlement CNT TRAY: Recalls Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Venous Catheters & Pressure Monitoring Sets COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending CTI BIOPHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York CUBIC CORPORATION: Consumer Cases Settled for Nominal Amount DAVE & BUSTER'S: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action DRAFTKINGS INC: More Than 80 Fraud Suits Coordinated into MDL E. I. DU PONT: 2017 Trial Set for 40 Drinking Water Cases EMCORE CORPORATION: Faces "Mirasol" Class Action EROS INT'L: "Popi" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act EUROPEAN NATURAL: Recalls Brian's Cauliflower Due to Sulfites FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Supreme Court Keeps Jarvis Counterclaims FLEETMATICS USA: "Gillard" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: 4 Securities Class Suits Filed in Texas FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Judge Decertifies FLSA Collective Actions FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Chopped Romaine Products Due to Allergens GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Organic Shake Products Due to Salmonella GENERAL MOTORS: Two Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs Lawyers at War GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets Due to Soy GOOGLE INC: Taps Cooley to Defend E-mail Scanning Class Action GOPRO INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action H-E-B: Recalls Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream Due to Wood Pieces HORMEL FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Contamination HSBC: Reaches $470MM Mortgage Settlement with Gov't, 49 States ILLINOIS: Faces Suit Over Appropriated Private Property INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Appellate Briefing to Be Held INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Oral Argument in "Lanier" Appeal Set INTERNATIONAL FOODSOURCE: Recalls Raw Pistachios Products JEL SERT: Recalls Banana Cream Pie Filling Due to Salmonella KING SOOPERS: Recalls Gourmet Bread Pudding Due to Walnuts KROGER: Former Call Center Workers File Wage Suit LIFELOCK INC: Incurs Loss Following $113MM FTC Settlement LIVING TREE: Recalls Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: "Alvarez" Case Scheduled for Mediation MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella MARIN PASTA: Recalls Pork Ravioli Products Due to Noncompliance MCKESSON CORP: Class Certification Bid in TCPA Case Pending META FINANCIAL: 3 Class Actions Filed Against MetaBank(R) MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Ex-Employee's Unpaid OT Class Action MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Bradshaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT NATURAL HEALTH: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set NAVIENT CORP: April 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set NET I: Securities Litigation Has Been Closed NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: Settles Family Leave Suit for $700K NEXT MODEL: Fashion Models File Class Action Over Mistreatment NOVARTIS AG: U.S. Unit Faces 21 Reclast Product Liability Suits NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Faces 395 Reglan Product Liability Cases NOVARTIS AG: NPC Faces 12 Cases Over Tekturna, Rasilez & Valturna NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Private Payors' Suit in New Jersey NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Still Faces Solodyn(R) Claims NOVARTIS AG: Alcon Still Faces Contact Lens Claims NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Payors' Claims over Gleevec NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz & Momenta Sued in Tenn. over Enoxaparin NOVARTIS AG: Continues to Defend Eye Drop Products Class Suits NOVARTIS AG: Gender Discrimination Claims Against Alcon Settled NOVARTIS AG: NPC Continues to Defend Zometa & Aredia Claims NOVARTIS AG: Excedrin Consumer Class Action Remains Pending OUTERWALL INC: Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court's Rulings PATIENT FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tropper" Suit Says PALERO MEAT: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PETROBRAS: Must Face Investor Class Action, Judge Rules PETROBRAS: International Investors Mull Class Action Over Losses PGA TOUR: Professional Caddies Lose Bib Class Action PRINCE GEORGE, WA: School Board Sued Over Child Pornography PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Settlement Reached in MCG Merger Case PETROLVALVES: "Foy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Chides Lawyers Over Litigation Strategy PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: "Arakaki" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT QLOGIC CORP: Still Faces "Hull" Lawsuit in California QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Filing Stays Class Suits RAMS: Faces Class Action Over PSL Contract Reimbursement RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schacher" Suit Says RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reizman" Suit Says RMCN CREDIT: "Biller" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Defending Suits Related to Cameron Merger SOLARWINDS INC: Sued in Tex. Over Misleading Financial Reports SPOTIFY USA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Completed in Clearwire Case STATE FARM: Court Issues Opinion on Labor Depreciation Suit SUMMIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Koroman" Suit Says SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SUPERIOR COOLING: "Duran" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursements SWEETWATER POOLS: Faces "Tucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Suit Says SYMANTEC CORP: Awaits Final Class Action Settlement Approval SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces "Mintz" Suit in N.Y. Over Automated Calls TALK OF THE TOWN: Faces "Romanofsky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing Plaintiffs Object to Recommendations TD AMERITRADE: March 4 Final Approval Hearing Set TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Class Suit Dismissed TF FOODS: Recalls Fried Bean Snack Products Due to Peanuts TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lainer" Suit Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles "Safe Ride Fee" Suit for $28.5MM UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 25 Drivers' Class Actions UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Labor Suits Pile Up UBER TECHNOLOGIES: MDL Panel Refuses to Coordinate Drivers' Suits UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Appeal over Case Dismissal Ongoing VICAL INC: 9th Circuit Dismissed Class Action Appeal VOSGES LTD: Recalls Bacon Chocolate Products Due to Misbranding VOYAGER PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Ballard" Suit Claims WILSHIRE CREDIT: Suit Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract YAHOO INC: Faces Suit Over Ranking System-Related Discrimination * Class Actions Over Website Accessibility on the Rise * Partial Class Action Settlements Not Covered Under PSLRA * Securities Class Action Filings in Canada Plummet in 2015 ********* AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 11 disclosed it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. securities (NYSE: AJRD) from October 15, 2013 through February 1, 2016, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Aerojet investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Aerojet class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-827.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purchase accounting for contracts acquired as part of the acquisition of the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne division from United Technologies Corporation in the quarter ended August 31, 2013 was erroneous; (2) the accounting for changes or modifications to one of the acquired Rocketdyne Business contracts beginning in the quarter ended February 28, 2014 was erroneous; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Aerojet's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 11, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-827.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ANTHEM INC: "Hunter" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract, Negligence ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Hunter, Carrie Ramos, Randy Polacsek, and all others similarly-situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-10046 (D. Mass., January 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for negligence and breach of contract. In 2014 and 2015, Anthem, Inc. experienced one of the largest data security breaches in history. Cyberattackers stole the personal information of approximately 80 million Americans ("Affected Individuals"). The Plaintiffs alleged that despite the fact that it was storing sensitive personal information that it knew was valuable to, and vulnerable to, cyberattackers, Anthem and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. failed to take even the most basic security precautions that could have protected Affected Individuals' data. Anthem is one of the largest health benefits and health insurance companies in the United States. Anthem serves its medical members through its fourteen Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee affiliates, as well as its non-Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates, such as Amerigroup Corporation, CareMore Health Group, Inc., HealthLink, and UniCare. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Lee, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 933-1265 Fax: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: LLee@myadvocates.com - and - Andrew Friedman, Esq. Eric Kafka, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: AFriedman@cohenmilstein.com EKafka@cohenmilstein.com APPLE INC: PCVA to Proceed with iPhone "Error 53" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Seattle-based law firm PCVA has decided to move forward with a class action lawsuit related to Apple's hardware repair practices, specifically targeting the "Error 53" code issue that renders iPhone unusable following an unauthorized Touch ID fingerprint sensor install. Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the pending suit alleges Apple has "gone too far" in its attempts to control the iPhone hardware platform, saying the "Error 53" message some users are seeing as a result of unauthorized repairs warrants redress. Error 53 codes affect iPhone 6 and 6s handsets that have undergone Touch ID module -- or in some cases screen, flex cable and water- damaged component -- replacement by a repair firm operating outside of Apple's Authorized Service Provider network. Most users see the message after restoring a saved backup or updating to the latest iOS version. In addition to being rendered unusable, iPhones showing Error 53 messages repaired through an unofficial dealer are no longer covered under Apple's warranty as they were, in effect, tampered with by an outside party. Users have reported Error 53 codes from at least early 2015, but it wasn't until recently that the issue gained public notoriety. A media report suggested Apple was not only aware of the error message, but had software safeguards in place that "bricked" affected units to satisfy standard iOS security measures. "We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is uniquely paired to the Touch ID sensor," an Apple representative said. "When iOS detects that the pairing fails, Touch ID, including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure." For its part, Apple is attempting to protect highly sensitive biometric user data gathered by Touch ID and its supporting circuitry. By distributing certified parts through authorized repair agents Apple can control against potential security breaches built into unchecked parts. The lawsuit rekindles an ongoing "right to repair" argument that has long plagued Apple. The company has in may cases made it nearly impossible for users to open, let alone repair, a device on their own. From generous application of adhesives to the introduction of proprietary pentalobe screws, Apple engineers its devices to thwart unauthorized repair efforts. Apple claims such steps are required to ensure its devices work as designed, allowing for a consistent user experience. On behalf of its clients, PCVA seeks at least $5 million in damages and restitution for users affected by Error 53 codes, as well as the release of a software update that removes the imposed repair restriction from iOS. ATHENAHEALTH INC: May 2016 Final Approval Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has set a final approval hearing for May 2016, on the settlement in a securities class action lawsuit. On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011. On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as those set forth in the first amended complaint. On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on October 23, 2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February 1, 2011, and August 9, 2011. "We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13, 2015," the Company said. "On April 27, 2015, we filed our answer to the third amended complaint denying the allegations in the third amended complaint." On September 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle on a comprehensive settlement of all claims asserted in the lawsuit with no admission of liability by any defendants and with any settlement amounts being funded by insurance. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on December 16, 2015 and set a final approval hearing for May 2016. athenahealth is a provider of cloud-based services and mobile applications for medical groups and health systems. ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by St. Louis Heart Center ------------------------------------------------------ athenahealth, Inc. will vigorously defend against the lawsuit by the St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was filed by St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition alleges the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). The Company was served on July 11, 2015. On August 10, 2015, the case was removed to federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215. The Company served a Rule 68 offer of judgment, offering the plaintiff relief for its individual claims on August 11, 2015. On November 2, 2015, the court entered an order staying the case pending the United States Supreme Court's (the "Supreme Court") decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857 ("Campbell- Ewald"). On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald. "We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said. athenahealth is a provider of cloud-based services and mobile applications for medical groups and health systems. ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces Suit by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care -------------------------------------------------------------- athenahealth, Inc. will vigorously defend against the lawsuit by the Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On September 4, 2015, a class action petition was filed by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-13156, against athenahealth. The petition alleges we violated the TCPA. The Company was served on September 9, 2015. "We served a Rule 68 offer of judgment, offering the plaintiff relief for its individual claims on October 16, 2015," the Company said. On December 2, 2015, the court continued the matter for 60 days pending the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald. On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald. "We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said. athenahealth is a provider of cloud-based services and mobile applications for medical groups and health systems. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posted $12.8MM Gain from Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Amerisourcebergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that during the three months ended December 31, 2015, the Company recognized gains of $12.8 million relating to class action lawsuits. Amerisourcebergen disclosed that numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the class actions have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. According to the Company, during the three months ended December 31, 2015, it recognized gains of $12.8 million relating to the class action lawsuits. During the three months ended December 31, 2014, the Company recognized no gains relating to the class action lawsuits. These gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's consolidated statements of operations. Amerisourcebergen is one of the largest global pharmaceutical sourcing and distribution services companies, helping both healthcare providers and pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturers improve patient access to products and enhance patient care. BAYER: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Drug Claims Into Mass Tort -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a Philadelphia judge has struck down the bid to establish a mass tort program for numerous cases claiming the antibiotics Levaquin, Avelox and Cipro led to nerve damage. Administrative Judge Jacqueline F. Allen denied a motion from 32 plaintiffs who had sought to consolidate their claims into a mass tort. She issued her decision in Whitters v. Bayer in a one- paragraph order siding with the drugmakers Bayer Corp. and Johnson & Johnson. The order did not explain Allen's reasoning. A spokesman for Bayer said in an emailed statement that the company was pleased with the decision. "We are gratified that the court agreed with this argument and ruled that these cases can proceed in a more efficient and orderly manner individually, without the need for inefficient and unnecessarily complicated consolidation," spokesman Christopher Loder said. "We believe that these drugs are important medicines and that the benefits continue to outweigh the risks. Bayer believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously against plaintiffs' claims." Although the plaintiffs all alleged the broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotics had caused peripheral neuropathy, the drugmakers had argued that the mass tort status would unnecessarily complicate the litigation, as the three antibiotics have different uses, chemical makeups, warnings and development and approval histories. In opposition papers filed in December, attorneys for Bayer said the differences would require particularized drug-specific discovery. "Individualized legal issues, such as --innovator liability in the setting of generic versions of these drugs, will also require drug and manufacturing-specific analysis," Bayer said in its response to the plaintiffs, which was filed by A. Elizabeth Balakhani -- ebalakhani@gdldlaw.com -- of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann. In November, attorneys representing the 32 plaintiffs with existing claims sent a petition to then-Philadelphia Administrative Judge Kevin M. Dougherty, seeking to have the pending cases designated as a mass tort. The petition said the attorneys anticipate filing at least 30 more cases in the near future. The petition alleged that warnings on the drug failed to properly demonstrate the association between the drugs and the nerve damage. The plaintiffs' petition said the drugs are all used to treat bacterial infections in the lungs, sinus, skin and urinary tract. The petition also claimed evidence of an association between fluoroquinolone drugs and peripheral neuropathy dates back as far as 1992. The cases involve negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims, and the litigation is expected to deal with whether the defendants knew and failed to disclose the risks, or misrepresented the risks through marketing campaigns, the plaintiffs' petition said. In its opposition filings, J&J highlighted the differences between the medications, warning labels and uses, and said creating a mass tort will not promote efficiency. J&J also noted that discovery has already taken place in the federal multidistrict litigation that was created in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in August, and argued that any new discovery will be on a plaintiff-specific basis. The company further said that all but two of the pending cases involve plaintiffs from Philadelphia, and so creating a mass tort would attract numerous claims that do not belong in the Philadelphia court system. BIONDILLO'S BAKERY: "Mercado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Teodulo Mercado, Salvador Sanchez, Arnulfo Saucedo, Ruben Hinojosa, Leonel Alfaro, Marcelino Esteban, Alvaro Hinojosa, Rigoberto Hinojosa, Arturo Hinojosa-Villa, Adan Gamino, and all others similarly-situated v. Biondillo's Bakery, LLC, and Al Filin, Case No. 1:16-cv-00375 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Defendants operate a wholesale bakery. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Tel: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com BJ'S WHOLESALE: Recalls Mortadella and Deli Meat Products --------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., is voluntarily issuing a recall of Cittero Mortadella and deli meats sold from January 20 through February 3, 2016 due to a possible exposure to a tree nut allergen (pistachio). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pistachios run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The Citterio Mortadella is being recalled because it may contain undeclared pistachios. Deli meats that may have come in contact with the same equipment as the Citterio Mortadella are also being recalled. See attached list of affected deli meats. These sliced deli meats are sold in individual service bags. The recalled deli meats were sold at BJ's locations in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall is being conducted because during the January 20, 2016 - February 3, 2016 timeframe, BJ's mistakenly received Citterio Mortadella containing pistachios. BJ's deli labels did not list pistachios as an ingredient. Since the Mortadella with pistachios may have been sliced on equipment where other deli meats were sliced, BJ's is conducting a voluntary recall of all deli meats purchased during the dates shown above. Deli cheeses are sliced on separate equipment and, as such, are not subject to this voluntary recall. BJ's is coordinating closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and has taken precautionary steps, including removing all potentially-impacted products from its delis and disinfecting the deli equipment and surfaces. Members that purchased the recalled products and have an allergy to pistachio nuts, are asked to please throw away the Citterio Mortadella and any other deli meats purchased during January 20, 2016 - February 3, 2016. If you do not have an allergy to pistachio nuts, then you do not need to throw out the Citterio Mordatella or other deli meats as they are safe to eat. Members can visit their local BJ's with their receipt for a refund. If a Member does not have their receipt, a BJ's Team Member at their local Club can look it up. If Members have any additional questions, please contact BJ's Member Care Department at 800-896-0847 during the hours of 9 AM to 7 PM EST Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST Saturday, and 12 PM to 6 PM EST Sunday. Product List: Article Number Article Description ------------- ------------------- 983523 WELLSLEY FARMS HONEY HAM HONEY HAM 983561 KRAKUS IMPORT POL HAM-SELL 982441 WELLSLEY BLACK FOREST HAM 984419 HORMEL COOKED HAM 984097 D+W VA BAKED HAM 984473 DAK HAM 984432 D+W GOURMET LT HAM 984513 D+W SMOKED HAM ALL NATURAL 984098 D+W PEPPERED HAM 984628 APPLEGATE HAM BLACK FOREST 984630 APPLEGATE SLOW COOKED HAM 984463 ESSKAY LS FF HAM 982591 WELLSLEY FARM OVEN ROASTED TURKEY 982443 WELLSLEY FARM HONEY TURKEY 984480 D+W HOME TURKEY BREAST 984823 WELLSLEY FARM LS TURKEY 984148 D+W MAPLE HONEY TURKEY 984481 D+W BUFFALO CHICKEN 984116 D+W BLACK PEPPER TURKEY 982589 WELLSLEY FARM SMOKED TURKEY 984105 D+W GMRT LITE TURKEY 984511 HARVESTLAND ROASTED TURKEY 982592 WELLSLEY FARM BUFFALO CHICKEN 982590 WELLSLEY FARM OVEN HONEY CHICKEN 984118 D+W BLACK FOREST TURKEY 984159 D+W BBQ CHICKEN 984627 APPLEGATE ROASTED TURKEY 984629 APPLEGATE HONEY MAPLE TURKEY 984142 D+W ROTIS CHICKEN BREAST 984586 HARVESTLAND HONEY ROASTED TURKEY 980643 D + W SRIRACHA CHICKEN 983188 WELLSLEY FARMS ROAST BEEF 984149 D+W LONDON BROIL ROAST BEEF 982437 WF PASTRAMI 982439 WF CORNED BEEF 984158 D+W BEEF BOLOGNA 984160 D+W BRAUNSCHWEIGER 983506 WUNDERBAR BOLOGNA 984478 ARMOUR MEAT BOLOGNA 984143 D+W OLIVE LOAF 984564 KUNZLER SWEET BOLOGNA 984496 KUNZLER LEBANON BOLOGNA 984462 ESSKAY MEAT BOLOGNA 980496 D+W LOW SALT BOLOGNA 984467 CITTERIO GENOA SALAMI 984487 CITTERIO PROSCIUTTO 984472 CITTERIO HARD SALAMI 984470 CITTERIO MORTADELLA 984469 CITTERIO PEPPERONI 984471 CITTERIO HOT CAPICOLLA 984495 CITTERIO CHORIZO 984466 CITTERIO SWT CACPICOLLA 984619 EL TORO CUBAN PORK 983200 SAUGY NATURAL CASING FRANKS 984464 ESSKAY BBQ LOAF 983621 3 FOOT HERO 983403 DELI SANDWICH 983623 THE C PREP ENTERTAINER 984615 3 FOOT HERO ITALIAN 984477 CROISSANT SANDWICH PLATTER 984476 ITALIAN MEAT PLATTER 984439 D+W SIGNATURE PLATTER 984552 D+W SANDWICH RING 984509 WELLSLEY FARM LIGHT PLATTER 980384 ITALIAN SANDWICH RING 983620 3FT HERO BREAD ONLY 984580 WELLSLEY FARM DELI RING BREAD ONLY 980412 WELLSLEY FARM SANDWICH RING SUBSTITUTE TURKEY 980393 3FT AMERICAN SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF 980395 3FT AMERICAN SUBSTITUTE TURKEY 980391 WELLSLEY FARM SANDWICH RING SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF 980402 WELLSLEY FARM ENTERTAINMENT PLATTER SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF 980394 D + W SANDWICH RING SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF 980413 WF LIGHTFARE SUBSTITUTE TURKEY 980392 DW Signaure Platter SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF 980404 WF Crois Platter SUBSTITUTE ROAST BEEF BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: "Dixson" Suit Seeks Damages Under Unruh Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Dixson, Jr., and all others similarly-situated v. Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC t/a Firestone Complete Auto Care, Case No. CIV536727 (Cal. Super., December 28, 2015), seeks statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code Sections 54 and 55. Both the CDPA, which was enacted in 1968, and the Unruh Act, which was amended in 1987 to cover persons with disabilities, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability and require full and equal access to services, facilities and advantages of public accommodations. The Defendant operates over 100 stores in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 534-2590 Fax: (310) 247-0160 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Ruling to Impact Class Action Strategy --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and Daniel Werb, Esq. -- dwerb@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, a putative class action case, that an unaccepted pre-certification settlement offer to the named plaintiff does not moot either the plaintiff's claim or that of the supposed class. The case involved a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and was decided on basic principles of contract law, but it raises important implications for class action plaintiffs and defendants in all manner of cases, including in particular class actions alleging false labeling and other advertising. In short, Campbell-Ewald begins to, but does not fully, answer the question of whether, short of a settlement agreement with the named plaintiff, a defendant can moot a purported class action suit prior to class certification, therefore forcing plaintiff's counsel to find a new lead plaintiff (a task sometimes more difficult than one might suppose). In the underlying dispute, the plaintiff, Jose Gomez, filed a complaint on behalf of a supposed nationwide class alleging that defendant Campbell-Ewald sent him and others unwanted text messages in violation of the TCPA, which prohibits using an auto-dialer to send a text message absent the recipient's express consent. Campbell-Ewald, under a contract with the U.S. Navy, sent recruitment messages to over 100,000 recipients, including Gomez, but Gomez alleged that he did not consent to receive the messages (and indeed was too old to be in the Navy's targeted age group). Before Mr. Gomez moved for class certification, Campbell proposed to settle Gomez's individual claim in full and filed an offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The Supreme Court majority did not dispute the lower court's finding that the relief offered, if accepted, would have fully compensated Gomez for the largest individual amount to which he could have been entitled under the TCPA assuming the jury found in his favor on liability. Mr. Gomez, however, did not accept Campbell's offer and allowed the Rule 68 submission to lapse. Campbell-Ewald then moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that its offer of complete relief mooted Gomez's individual claim and that Mr. Gomez's failure to move for class certification before his individual claim became moot caused the putative class claims to become moot as well. The District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion, determining that Gomez was not dilatory in filing his certification request and thus the class claims would "relate back" to the date Mr. Gomez filed the complaint. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that Mr. Gomez's case remained live but on a different ground, holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer for full relief of the named plaintiff's individual claim made before class certification does not moot either the individual claim or the class action. Campbell-Ewald petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted in order to resolve an inter-circuit split over whether an unaccepted offer can moot a plaintiff's claim, thereby depriving federal courts of Article III jurisdiction. On the merits, the Justices were split as to whether an unaccepted settlement offer moots the plaintiff's case under Article III's "cases" and "controversies" requirement. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, held that under basic principles of contract law, Campbell-Ewald's settlement offer, once rejected, became a nullity, and the parties thereafter retained the same stakes they had at the outset. Chief Justice Roberts' dissent argued that "Article III does not require the parties to affirmatively agree on a settlement before the case becomes moot," and "when a defendant unilaterally remedies the injuries of the plaintiff, the case is moot -- even if the plaintiff disagrees and refuses to settle the dispute, and even if the defendant continues to deny liability." The majority and dissent agreed, however, that the case is limited to its facts. The majority expressly refrained from deciding whether its holding would be different if Campbell-Ewald had actually deposited the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the lower court then entered judgment for the plaintiff in that amount, a point the dissent also emphasized. The implications are significant for class action strategy going forward. While Chief Justice Roberts' dissent laments that the decision transfers power over standing from the federal courts to the plaintiff, Justice Ginsberg counters that "the dissent's approach would place the defendant in the driver's seat." Justice Ginsburg saw Campbell-Ewald's attempt at settlement prior to class certification as a "gambit" to avoid any holding of classwide liability later, but Chief Justice Roberts argued in a footnote that "Gomez does not have standing to seek relief based solely on the alleged injuries of others, and Gomez's interest in sharing attorney's fees among class members or in obtaining a class incentive award does not create Article III standing." Clearly, the Justices are aware of the complicated issues at play when a defendant tries to moot a class action suit prior to class certification without a settlement offer affirmatively accepted by the named plaintiff, and Campbell-Ewald's holding, rooted in principles of contract law, does not fully resolve this issue. Watch this space for further developments. CITIBANK NA: Seeks Approval of $23M Libor Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Siegel, Esq. -- rsiegel@bilzin.com -- and Stacia A. Wells, Esq. -- swells@bilzin.com -- of Bilzin Sumberg, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report that Citibank, N.A. has asked a federal district court to bless its $23 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy among banks to fix yen-denominated London Interbank Offered Rates (LIBOR) interest rates between 2006 and 2010. The settlement is the first of its kind in the case. The lead plaintiff in the litigation, Jeffrey Laydon, urged the court to approve the settlement, with his counsel describing it as an "ice breaker" that could serve as a "potential catalyst" for other banks to settle. In 2012, Mr. Laydon sued more than twenty financial institutions, alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and Sherman Act, among others. In a 300 page complaint, he detailed an alleged conspiracy among banks that sit on LIBOR and Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (TIBOR) panels of conspiring to fix these rates by submitting agreed-upon estimates. As a result of the defendants' actions, Mr. Laydon claims that he suffered thousands of dollars of damages in connection with his shorting derivatives of Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts. In 2014, the federal judge presiding over the case dismissed Mr. Laydon's antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, finding that he did not allege sufficient facts to support those causes of action. The judge ruled that "plaintiff alleges only that he 'initiated short positions in CME Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts during the class period and suffered net losses on such contracts due to the presence of artificial Euroyen TIBOR future prices proximately caused by defendants' unlawful manipulation and restraint of trade.'" However, Laydon "fail[ed] to plead facts to establish that this [was] or might [have been] anticompetitive." While the dismissal of the antitrust claims was a boon to the defendants, the judge also ruled that the plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support his price manipulation and aiding and abetting causes of action. The judge found that Mr. Laydon sufficiently pled that "the banks stood to gain profits from the manipulations of yen-LIBOR and TIBOR rates, in the form of hundreds of millions in ill-gotten trading profits from Euroyen derivatives positions" and through his pleadings, the plaintiff presented "overwhelming factual content" from which a court could infer manipulative intent. Fast forward two years, following countless hours of discovery and legal schisms, to the first of what promises to be multiple settlements between the lead plaintiff and defendants. Mr. Laydon's counsel noted that the Citibank settlement "give[s] class members a bird in the hand and the opportunity to obtain the same bird in the bush through settlements or verdicts against the remaining defendants." Only time will tell if the Citibank settlement truly breaks the ice in this litigation. The case is Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., et al., Case Number 1:12- cv-03419, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. CNT TRAY: Recalls Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------ Braga Organic Farms announces the voluntary recall of pistachios due to potential contamination with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella can experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this recall. The recalled nuts were distributed in retail stores in California, Oregon and Washington, and it was distributed through online sales nationwide. The product comes in a clear or green standup bag, with the date code stamped on the bottom of the bag. The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in a one-pound package of raw pistachio kernels purchased online. A list of affected products and code dates is listed below; no other Braga Organic Farms products are associated with this voluntary recall. Product Size UPC BEST BY OR ------- ---- --- PURCHASE DATE ------------- Raw Pistachio Kernels 8 oz 896547002047 JUN 29 2016, JUL 04 2016, JUL 18 2016, JUL 25 2016, JUL 26 2016 1 lb 810126020215 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/27/16 2 lbs 896547002306 JUN 28 2016, JUL 13 2016, JUL 27 2016 5 lbs 896547002641 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/27/16 Trail Mix 8 oz 896547002139 JUN 29 2016, JUL 7 2016, JUL 11 2016, JUL 26 2016 1 lb 810126020451 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/29/16 2 lbs 896547002320 JUL 01 2016, Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/29/16 5 lbs 896547002603 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/29/16 25 lbs 896547002492 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/29/16 Nut Mix 8 oz 896547002177 JUL 06 2016, JUL 07 2016, JUL 11 2016, JUL 18 2016 1 lb 810126020192 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/27/16 2 lbs 896547002351 JUL 01 2016, Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/27/16 5 lbs 810126020208 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/27/16 25 lbs 896547002412 Purchased 12/28/15 to 1/27/16 Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not consume it. They should destroy it or return it to the point of purchase. Consumers with questions should call 855-661-2101, 8:15 am - 4:30 pm, PST, Monday through Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/vVknfj COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Venous Catheters & Pressure Monitoring Sets ----------------------------------------------------------------- On January 6, 2016, Cook Medical initiated a voluntary recall of 360 specific lots of Single Lumen Central Venous Catheters and Pressure Monitoring Sets and Trays due to catheter tip fracture and/or separation. Globally, 17,827 devices are subject to this recall. The recalled products are specific versions and lot numbers of the Single Lumen Central Venous Catheter Sets and Trays, Single Lumen Pressure Monitoring Sets, Femoral Artery Pressure Monitoring Catheter Sets and Trays, and Radial Artery Pressure Monitoring Catheter Sets and Trays. These products are intended for use in venous or arterial pressure monitoring, blood sampling, and administration of drugs and fluids. During an internal inspection, a catheter exhibited the potential for catheter tip fracture and/or separation. Further investigation revealed that the technique used by the product assembler while tipping the catheter likely contributed to this nonconformance. No reports of illness or injury have been associated with this issue to date. Potential adverse events that may occur as a result of catheter tip fracture and/or separation include loss of device function, the need for medical intervention to retrieve a separated segment, and complications resulting from a separated tip occluding blood flow to end organs. Examples of such complications include stroke, kidney injury, or damage to the intestines or limbs. The Single Lumen Central Venous Catheters and Pressure Monitoring Sets and Trays in this recall were distributed globally between April 24, 2015, and October 23, 2015. Product can be identified by the part number and lot number that are provided on the outer package product label. The lot numbers for products that are subject to this recall can be found below: Name of Device Reference Part Global Product Lot Number -------------- Number Number ---------- -------------- -------------- Femoral Artery C-NPMSY-501J-15 G13531 NS6054841, Pressure NS6054842, Monitoring NS6075552, Catheter Tray NS6082372, NS6082373 C-PMSY-300-FA G02962 NS5833887, NS5866959, NS5881272, NS5881334, NS5881335, NS5919925, NS6047449, NS6054847, NS6054848, NS6072526, NS6072555, NS6082379, NS6090277, NS6105921, NS6124989, NS6130501, NS6148639 C-PMSY-300J-FA G02795 NS5866961, NS5866962, NS5892115, NS5922709, NS5932844, NS5974256, NS6031988, NS6031990, NS6042578, NS6050052, NS6050053 C-PMSY-400J-FA G01925 NS6031992, NS6031993, NS6130504, NS6137424 C-PMSY-401-FA G02253 NS6054849 Femoral Artery C-NPMS-501J-15 G13332 6054830, Pressure 6054831, Monitoring 6072436, Catheter Set 6078670, 6081720, 6083977 C-PMS-300-FA G02250 NS5833881, NS5881267, NS5881268, NS5892106, NS5892107, NS5892108, NS5914766, NS5922706, NS5928596, NS5932820, NS5932821, NS5967447, NS5967448, NS5967449, NS6014474, NS6014475, NS6014484, NS6014485, NS6042778, NS6042795, NS6042796, NS6050046, NS6063330, NS6063354, NS6075555, NS6100599, NS6100600, NS6108225, NS6124985 C-PMS-300J-FA G04021 NS5888542, NS5928597, NS6028553, NS6042797, NS6090273, NS6090274, NS6100601, NS6130149 C-PMS-301-FA G02598 5800570, 5860387, 5891906, 5980254, 6003160, 6062725, 6143835, NS5830771, NS5866956, NS5866957, NS5881269, NS6014460, NS6042798, NS6050047, NS6075534, NS6075556 C-PMS-301J-FA G02755 5895598, 6129058, 6148613, NS5932822, NS5932837, NS5994907, NS6130498 C-PMS-400-FA G01909 6067782, 6139280, NS6042805, NS6130500 C-PMS-401-FA G02058 6049951, 6137353, 6139281 C-PMS-401J-FA G02089 6034986, 6049957, 6067784 Radial Artery C-PMSY-250-RA G04528 6124812 Pressure Monitoring Catheter Tray C-PMSY-300-RA G01923 5793192, 5824526, 5884647, 5892068, 5942090, 5967410, 6003167, 6059765, 6134128, 6153124, 6168137, 6254068 C-PMSY-301-RA G02052 5793193, 5866995, 5892069, 5942092, 6003168, 6025099, 6067664, 6168138 Radial Artery C-PMS-250-RA G02926 6049998, Pressure 6160195, Monitoring 6160212, Catheter Set NS5898558, NS6063328, NS6178204, NS6178206 C-PMS-251-RA G02930 5895605, 6191185 C-PMS-300-RA G01908 5793196, 5800313, 5800443, 5800569, 5806981, 5810905, 5810917, 5824484, 5824546, 5824547, 5824548, NS6108226, NS6170739, NS6170767 C-PMS-300-RA-CHOP G50148 5905252, 6003109 C-PMS-301-RA G02054 5793197, 5800571, 5800572, 5824485, 5824551, 5845063, C-PMS-400-RA G02092 6059759, NS6047396, NS6047397, NS6047398, NS6047399, NS6047440, NS6047442 C-PMS-301J-RA G02133 NS6072553 Single Lumen C-PMS-250-PED G04889 NS6168054, Central NS6178118 Venous Catheter Set C-PMS-251J-PED G05345 NS6063352 C-PMS-300- G02805 NS5855441 CHILDRENS-032285 C-PMS-301J-PED G03117 5824486, 5898058, 5967405, 6079119, NS5932737, NS6028554, NS6042799 Single Lumen C-PMSY-250 G02854 5987014 Central Venous Catheter Tray C-PMSY-251 G03241 NS6178099 C-PMSY-251J G05434 NS6028540 C-PMSY-300 G01926 NS5830758, NS5866960, NS5918174, C-PMSY-300J G01927 NS5881337, NS5892116, NS6031991 Single Lumen C-PMS-250 G02838 6028502, Pressure 6034979, Monitoring Set 6083984, 6194848, NS6014456, NS6014457 C-PMS-2502-15-3.5 G07943 6148788, 6254047 C-PMS-2502-15-5.0 G03425 5906417, 6160213 Shipments were made globally to the following regions: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Netherland, New Zealand, Panama, Puerto Rico, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Cook Medical notified its customers and distributors by recall notification letters in January. All customers and distributors should quarantine and discontinue use of all affected units and return the affected product to the company as soon as possible for credit. Cook Medical notified the FDA and other global regulatory agencies of this action. Consumers with questions may contact Cook Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235, Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or via email at FieldActionsNA@cookmedical.com. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, via regular mail or via fax. Complete and submit the report online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or via regular mail or fax. Download the form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1- 800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, and then complete and return to the address on the preaddressed form, or submit via fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. Adverse events may also be reported to Cook Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235, Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or via email at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com. COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending. During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers, and the underwriters of the initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO. Those lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation, and following the court's appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014. The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its directors, and certain of its executive officers, under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock in the IPO, damages of an unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. On September 9, 2014, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the underwriter defendants without prejudice. The Securities Complaint was further amended on October 18, 2014. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint, which has been fully briefed since December 2014. The motion to dismiss is currently pending. The Company believes the Securities Complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend it. Coty is a global beauty company. It manufactures and markets beauty products in the Fragrances, Color Cosmetics and Skin & Body Care segments with distribution in over 130 countries and territories across both prestige and mass markets. CTI BIOPHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Feb. 11 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 CTI Biopharma Corp. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's September 24, 2015 public offering (the "Offering") and/or between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, by making materially false and misleading statements about CTI's business prospects. CTI Biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company that acquires, develops, and markets novel targeted therapies for blood-related cancers in the United States and internationally. One of its most advanced products was pacritinib, a treatment for myleofibrosis. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/cti-biopharma-corp CTI Biopharma Accused of Misleading Investors About the Effectiveness of its Drug According to the complaint, CTI Biopharma failed to disclose that: (i) pacritinib was attributed as a potential cause in the death and injuries of several patients; (ii) its clinical trials showed the dangers of pacritinib usage; (iii) the company's new drug application would likely be withdrawn; and (iv) this would affect the company's future revenues. During 2014 through 2015, the company filed several Form 10-Q's and Form 10-K's with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") touting the effectiveness of pacritinib. On September 24, 2015, CTI Biopharma filed with the SEC its Prospectus Supplement to complete the offering of 10 million shares of common stock offered with a previously filed Registration Statement, which was required to disclose known trends or uncertainties likely to have an impact on the company's operations. Then, on February 8, 2016, the company issued a press release announcing that a partial clinical hold had been placed on pacritinib by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The company further disclosed that the FDA had identified several fatal and life-threatening safety issues in pacritinib-treated patients, including: heart failure; hemorrhage, including intracranial hemorrhage; and arrhythmias, including sudden death. On this news, CTI Biopharma stock fell $0.68 per share, or over 60%, to close at $0.44 per share on February 8, 2016. On February 9, 2016, the company announced that the FDA had placed a full clinical hold on pacritinib. Under the full clinical hold, all patients must discontinue pacritinib immediately, and the company may not enroll any new patients or start pacritinib as initial or crossover treatment. The clinical hold led the company to withdraw its previously submitted new drug application for pacritinib. On this news, CTI Biopharma stock fell over 40% during intraday trading, to close at $0.30 per share on February 10, 2016. CTI Biopharma 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 firm. 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. CUBIC CORPORATION: Consumer Cases Settled for Nominal Amount ------------------------------------------------------------ Cubic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company settled consumer lawsuits for a nominal amount in January 2016. "In October and December of 2013, and January of 2014, lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division against us and one of our transit customers alleging variously, among other things, breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act," the Company said. "In January 2014, these cases were consolidated into a single case and the plaintiffs were seeking to have the case certified as a class action." "Plaintiffs variously claimed, among other things, that: (i) they were wrongly charged for calling the call center that we operate for patrons of our transit customer, (ii) they were wrongly charged for a transfer and a second fare, (iii) they were not credited the cost of a transit card even after registration of the card, as is required under the terms of the cardholder agreement, and (iv) they were double charged for rides taken. We settled these lawsuits for a nominal amount in January 2016." DAVE & BUSTER'S: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a U.S. District Court judge has refused to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed by a former restaurant worker who claims her employer cut her hours to part time from full time in order to avoid Affordable Care Act costs, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin said in a lawsuit filed in May 2015 that in response to enactment of the ACA, managers at a New York restaurant operated by Dallas-based Dave & Buster's Inc. told workers that to avoid costs totaling as much as $2 million, it would reduce its full-time employees to about 40 from more than 100, according to the Feb. 9 ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin v. Dave & Busters Inc. et al. She was then reduced from full-time to part-time status, causing a reduction in pay to a range of $150 to $375 per week from a range of $450 to $600 per week, along with the loss of eligibility for medical and vision benefits, according to the ruling. Ms. Marin then filed suit, charging discrimination under ERISA. U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Dave & Buster's motion to dismiss the case in the ruling. "Plaintiff has put forward factual allegations supporting her claim that the employer had the specific intent to interfere with her right to health insurance," said the ruling. "The reduction in plaintiff's hours affected her employment status, her pay, and the benefits she had and to which she would be entitled." Commenting on the ruling, Kevin LaCroix, attorney and executive vice president of RT ProExec, a division of R-T Specialty L.L.C. in Beachwood, Ohio, said the ruling illustrates "how employers that try to restructure to find a way to evade the mandates of the ACA could wind up, potentially at least, facing litigation" under ERISA. DRAFTKINGS INC: More Than 80 Fraud Suits Coordinated into MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that more than 80 class actions against online daily fantasy sports sites DraftKings Inc. and FanDuel Inc. have been transferred to a federal judge in Boston. In an order on Feb. 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that all the cases, which included claims of consumer fraud and insider trading, should be coordinated for pretrial purposes before U.S. District Judge George O'Toole. That district was the favored venue of both companies, which supported coordination. DraftKings is based in Boston. "This is fantastic news for the company and validates our legal position," wrote DraftKings attorney James Fogelman, a partner at Los Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in an emailed statement. "While we believe that the cases are without merit and should be arbitrated, we are grateful that our arguments can now be presented in front of one court in Massachusetts." Emily Bass, a spokeswoman for New York's FanDuel, declined to comment. FanDuel, represented by Rebekah Kaufman, co-chairwoman of the litigation department at Morrison & Foerster, had supported Boston as an MDL venue but suggested the Southern District of New York as an alternative. Both sites allow players to create their own fantasy teams and win prize money on a daily or weekly basis based on the performances of real athletes in professional and college sports. The lawsuits, filed in 21 states, allege a broad scope of claims. According to the order, 42 of them alleged that the companies participated in "insider trading" by allowing their employees to participate in contests using nonpublic information. The scandal over fantasy sports sites erupted after a DraftKings employee inadvertently released internal data about a contest before the National Football League games had started -- and then went on to win $350,000 on FanDuel. Another 36 cases allege that the sites fraudulently enticed customers into participating in illegal gambling based on various state laws. And eight suits asserted that DraftKings failed to follow through on a promotional bonus program that was based on customer deposits. Most plaintiffs lawyers had pushed for cases to be transferred to the Southern District of New York or to Massachusetts, but several opposed coordination of all the litigation or sought to exclude the illegal-gambling and bonus cases. DraftKings and FanDuel countered that they planned to enforce arbitration clauses that all customers signed regardless of their legal claims. Although the arguments against including the bonus and illegal- gambling cases "have some logic," the MDL panel found the benefits of coordinating all the cases were "significant." "Here, regardless of the theories asserted, the actions will involve common discovery regarding the nature of the DFS defendants' online daily fantasy sports contests, their advertising and promotions, and their internal policies and practices," wrote MDL panel chairwoman Sarah Vance. Apart from the class actions, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has sued both companies for illegally promoting gambling in violation of New York law, and both sites have been banned or face new regulations restricting their business in several other states. On Dec. 14, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge granted Mr. Schneiderman's motion to enjoin DraftKings and FanDuel from operating in the state, but the intermediate-level Appellate Division on Jan. 11 granted a temporary stay of that ruling. FanDuel and DraftKings have insisted that their services are games of skill exempted from the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. E. I. DU PONT: 2017 Trial Set for 40 Drinking Water Cases --------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a West Virginia court has determined that 40 cases, most of which are expected to involve allegations that exposure to PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) in drinking water caused cancer, would be scheduled for trial in 2017, beginning in April of that year. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account. In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At December 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 600 over year end 2014. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). Based on the information currently available to the company, the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 37 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for the individual trial. The jury awarded $1.6 million in compensatory damages in the first individual trial, captioned Bartlett v DuPont, which was tried to a verdict in October 2015. The plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water had caused kidney cancer. DuPont, through Chemours, is appealing the decision. The second trial, captioned Wolf v DuPont, was scheduled to begin in March 2016 and involves allegations that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused ulcerative colitis. A confidential settlement for an inconsequential amount was reached in January 2016. In January 2016, the court determined that 40 cases, most of which are expected to involve allegations that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused cancer, would be scheduled for trial in 2017, beginning in April of that year. DuPont, through Chemours, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. EMCORE CORPORATION: Faces "Mirasol" Class Action ------------------------------------------------ EMCORE Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt employees of the Company working in California since December 15, 2011, filed on December 15, 2015, a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges six causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage statements; and (6) unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. The claims are premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and the putative class members were not provided with their legally required meal periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of this proceeding or the range of loss, should a loss occur. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the litigation. EROS INT'L: "Popi" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act ---------------------------------------------------------- Savva Popi, and all others similarly-situated v. Eros International PLC, Jyoti Deshpande, Andrew Heffernan, Prem Parameswaran, Kishore Lulla, Vijay Ahuja, Naresh Chandra, Dilip Thakkar, Sunil Lulla, Michael Kirkwood, Ken Naz, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, Jefferies LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and EM Securities LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00223 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. This is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Eros securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange on or about November 12, 2013; and/or (2) between November 12, 2013 and November 12, 2015, inclusive. The Plaintiff alleged that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Eros is in the Indian film entertainment industry. The Company coproduces, acquires and distributes Indian language films in multiple formats worldwide. The Company has created an online video streaming service, whereby users pay a fee to stream content through various web-connected devices, and touted the new streaming service as having huge growth potential. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. served as an underwriter and joint book-running manager of the Company's IPO. Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated served as an underwriter and joint book-running manager of the Company's IPO. Defendant UBS Securities LLC served as an underwriter and joint book-running manager of the Company's IPO. Defendant Jefferies LLC served as an underwriter and joint book- running manager of the Company's IPO. Defendant Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC served as an underwriter and joint book-running manager of the Company's IPO. Defendant EM Securities LLC served as an underwriter of the Company's IPO. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com EUROPEAN NATURAL: Recalls Brian's Cauliflower Due to Sulfites ------------------------------------------------------------- European Natural Food & Trading Co, Inc. of Paterson, NJ is recalling Brian's Cauliflower 83 oz. due to undeclared sulfites. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Brian's Cauliflower 83 oz. was distributed in NY, MA, CT and NJ where it reached consumers through retail stores. The product is pickled cauliflower and was sold in large clear, glass jars with the brand name Brian's and UPC 858567002421. The expiration date is 28/11/2016. The product was shipped during 2013 and 2014. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered by NYSDAM Laboratory sampling and analysis that product containing sulfites were distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of sulfites. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes. Consumers who have purchased Brian's Cauliflower 83 oz. are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (973) 553-1896, Monday - Friday from 9am - 5pm (Eastern Time Zone). FIRST RESOLUTION: Ohio Supreme Court Keeps Jarvis Counterclaims --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the motion of First Resolution Investment Corp. and First Resolution Management Corp. to dismiss counts IV and V of Sandra Jarvis's first amended class action counterclaim. A copy of the High Court's February 10, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/0lMzLqfrom Leagle.com. First Resolution filed a complaint in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, in Ohio, against Sandra Jarvis in an attempt to collect the charged off sum plus interest accrued to date on credit card debt, the interest in which it purchased from Chase Bank. First Resolution also sought future interest at a rate of 24%. After Jarvis failed to file a timely answer, First Resolution moved for default judgment. The trial court granted default judgment in the amount of $16,832.88 plus 24% future interest. Six weeks later, Jarvis moved to vacate the default judgment. The parties and the trial court judge signed a stipulated entry granting the motion to vacate. Ms. Jarvis then filed an answer in which she raised several affirmative defenses. She also filed counterclaims premised on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Ohio Consumer sales Practices Act, and common law abuse of process. She alleged these claims on her own behalf and as class action claims. The trial court later granted summary judgment to the defendants. Jarvis appealed to the Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District, which reversed and remanded. First Resolution elevated the matter to the state Supreme Court. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, and Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented. The appellate case is, JARVIS v. FIRST RESOLUTION INVEST. CORP., No. 2013-0118 (Ohio). FLEETMATICS USA: "Gillard" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ David Gillard, Jaclyn Stramiello, and all others similarly- situated v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00081 (M.D. Fla., January 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of federal wage and hour laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a provider of mobile workforce solutions for service-based businesses of all sizes delivered as software-as-a- service. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A. 1715 N. Westshore Blvd. Ste 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Tel: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: 4 Securities Class Suits Filed in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that four putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in November 2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits claim in part that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. The complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive. FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Judge Decertifies FLSA Collective Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq. -- mdisbrow@honigman.com -- of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that wage and hour class and collective actions have sky-rocketed in recent years. This increase in "bet the business" litigation has been facilitated, in part, by the unique process courts must follow under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to certify an FLSA collective action (versus a typical class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Citing the "modest" showing necessary to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action, plaintiffs' attorneys regularly obtain employee lists without establishing that a case actually can proceed on a class basis. Employers should know, however, that the fight is not over once a court conditionally certifies a collective action. A recent opinion in the case of Griffith v. Fordham Financial Management, Inc., Case No. 12 Civ. 1117, decided by the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, illustrates that careful discovery, and a proactive defense strategy, can lead to the decertification of an FLSA collective action -- reducing a potentially devastating class action into a much smaller lawsuit relating to a few named plaintiffs. In Griffith, as in many cases, the plaintiffs claimed their former employer violated the FLSA and state law by misclassifying them as independent contractors and failing to pay overtime compensation. The named plaintiffs also sought to represent over 100 other "similarly situated" individuals and asserted class claims under Rule 23 and collective claims under the FLSA. Prior to discovery, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. Thereafter, notice was sent to potential plaintiffs informing them of their right to join the lawsuit. But the fight did not end there. Following class discovery, in June 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify their state law claims under Rule 23. Clearly, the plaintiffs hoped the court would follow its prior ruling regarding conditional certification of the federal FLSA claims and permit them to pursue class claims under state law as well. However, on March 12, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the misclassification dispute was "capable of resolution by class-wide proof." After their victory over the Rule 23 class, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. In response, the plaintiffs argued that a different standard applied to FLSA collective actions and the court should continue to permit them to pursue FLSA claims on a representative basis. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs, granted the defendants' motion, and decertified the FLSA collective action -- requiring the plaintiffs to proceed on an individual basis only. In doing so, the court reviewed the two-stage certification process under the FLSA. The court noted that, at the first (notice) stage, the plaintiffs need only make a modest showing that they are similarly situated with others to proceed as a group. However, at the second stage (generally occurring after discovery) the court will determine based on a fuller record whether the plaintiffs are in fact similarly situated. Although the court recognized that the commonality test under Rule 23 is not technically the same as the FLSA's "similarly situated" test, it found that in practice there is "little difference" between the two tests, as "both allow for consideration of the same or similar factors, and generally provide a district court with discretion to deny certification for trial management reasons." Accordingly, the court similarly decertified the FLSA collective action. Among other things, the court found that the FLSA claims "were not capable of resolution by class-wide proof, and required highly individualized inquiries." In particular, the record established that the putative plaintiffs worked for the employer over different, non-overlapping periods and under different policies. Likewise, deposition testimony proved that the putative class worked under different agreements and on varying work schedules. Furthermore, there was disagreement over the level of control the employer exercised over the group's day-to-day responsibilities. Because of these variations, the court determined that the case would degenerate into individual inquiries and could not be maintained on a representative basis. The court also found that the low opt-in rate weighed against certification. The Griffith case should encourage employers embroiled in costly class wage and hour litigation to carefully review the facts of their case before throwing in the towel after conditional certification. In many circumstances, a case that was conditionally certified may be decertified after discovery. Griffith should also serve to caution would-be plaintiffs and their counsel. Not every wage and hour case can proceed as a class. The hopes of large class settlements should be tempered by the particular facts of each case. Moreover, courts are becoming increasingly skeptical about maintaining large collective actions. If there are significant factual differences among employees, or no global policy at issue, courts will not hesitate to decertify an FLSA collective action and require the named plaintiffs to proceed with their claims on an individual basis only. FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Chopped Romaine Products Due to Allergens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Express Incorporated is announcing a precautionary recall of a limited quantity of 32-ounce Fresh Express Chopped Romaine with a Product Code of G034A06A and Use-By Date of February 19 due to a possible exposure to undeclared allergens. Fresh Express representatives are already coordinating with stores to remove the recalled product from retail stores where distributed, primarily in Eastern and Southeastern states. No other Fresh Express products are included in this recall. No illnesses are reported. The recall was necessitated when it was learned that sealed condiment packets containing individual packets of dressing, croutons and parmesan cheese used in the brand's Caesar salads were mistakenly placed in a limited quantity of the chopped romaine product. Ingredients in the individual packets include milk, eggs, wheat and fish and even though the individual packets are enclosed in another sealed package, Fresh Express issued a recall out of an abundance of caution to protect the health and well-being of consumers who may be at risk from exposure to undeclared allergens. Fresh Express takes all matters of food safety very seriously. Company procedures and programs stringently follow all mandated regulations and focus on preventive measures designed to minimize potential risks. Fresh Express products with condiments that may contain allergens are properly labeled in accordance with the law. Fresh Express is coordinating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has conducted an investigation into this isolated event and is implementing corrective steps to prevent future occurrences. Consumers in possession of the recalled product should discard it. A refund is available where purchased or by contacting the Fresh Express Consumer Response Center toll-free at (800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time. Recalled Product Details: Fresh Express Chopped Romaine - 32-ounce bag * Product Code of G034A06A and Use-By Date of February 19 located in the upper right hand corner on the front of the bag * UPC Code of 0 7127926100 3 located on the reverse side of the bag by the bar code Recalled Product Distribution: Fresh Express Precautionary Recall, Chopped Romaine - 2/06/16 (No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall) BRAND PRODUCT NAME SIZE UPC PRODUCTION CODE BEST IF USED BY DATE POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION STATES Fresh Express Chopped Romaine 32 oz. 071279261003 G034A06A 19-Feb CT, DE, FL, GA, MA, ME, MD, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/AwXQyN GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Organic Shake Products Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- Garden of Life LLC is voluntarily withdrawing a limited quantity of its Raw Meal Organic Shake & Meal Chocolate, Original, Vanilla and Vanilla Chai because they have the potential to contain Salmonella Virchow. Even though Garden of Life routinely performs pathogen testing on every finished good lot to ensure safety and no product has ever tested positive for the presence of Salmonella, the company felt it was in the public's best interest to take this voluntary action. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. FDA is investigating illnesses. Every lot tested negative for the presence of Salmonella prior to release to the market. Raw Meal products are distributed throughout the United States and sold at better health food stores and natural grocers. Consumers who believe they may have a Raw Meal product affected by this recall, should look for the following lot codes prominently stamped on the underside of the plastic container. The following is the list of lots affected: PRODUCT NAME Lot Number Exp Date ------------ ---------- -------- RAW Organic Meal 10 CNT Tray 47214800 9/1/2017 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47198800 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47214600 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size 47215500 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size 47215501 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47216100 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47225500 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47225900 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47249200 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai 10 47183201 9/30/17 CNT Tray RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47198601 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Half Size 47206000 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47225600 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Half Size 47225800 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size 47226200 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size 47226400 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47236000 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla 10 CNT Tray 47248000 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47248901 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47253900 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size 47257401 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47226000 10/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47216200 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47225601 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47226100 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size 47226201 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size 47226300 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47246500 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full Size 47247600 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size 47247800 10/31/17 "In an overabundance of caution we are taking this extreme measure because we want to ensure that you never have to wonder about the purity of any Raw Meal product." said Brian Ray, President of Garden of Life. Any Raw Meal product from a lot code not listed above is entirely safe and not affected by this recall. All Garden of Life, LLC's products are manufactured in the United States at FDA and NSF audited facilities, in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices. No Garden of Life product has ever tested positive for salmonella. If, however, a consumer has purchased a product from any of the lot codes listed above and wishes to return it, they should return the unused portion of the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Questions may be directed to the company at 1-866- 465-0051, Monday-Friday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/GNpDmi GENERAL MOTORS: Two Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs Lawyers at War ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the plaintiffs lawyer who accused three attorneys of mismanaging the ignition-switch litigation against General Motors Co. has backed off his demands that a judge remove all of them. Still, the lawyer, Lance Cooper, is calling for the resignation of one of the lawyers, Bob Hilliard, claiming that his actions have imperiled the multidistrict litigation. Cooper in January asked U.S. District Judge Furman of the Southern District of New York to remove lead counsel from their posts after the first bellwether trial fell apart over allegations that the plaintiff, Robert Scheuer, might have committed perjury and fraud. Lead counsel defend their handling of the multidistrict litigation. On Feb. 5, Cooper fired back with a revised request to remove just Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, and replace him with two lawyers in charge of the personal injury and wrongful death litigation -- one for federal cases, one for state court. "The co-leads are getting ready to try a case in approximately a month that's worse than the case they just tried," Mr. Cooper told The National Law Journal on Feb. 8. "This process is broken -- this bellwether process -- and it's the most important process in helping the parties evaluate the case, which affects all the clients. Because it was broken in this way, the person leading the charge for the plaintiffs needs to be removed." Mr. Cooper, a former member of the MDL's executive committee, dropped his call to remove the other lead attorneys, Elizabeth Cabraser and Steve Berman. Both lawyers "are primarily responsible for the economic loss claims and their removal could potentially harm the plaintiffs who have an interest in these claims," Mr. Cooper wrote in a footnote in the papers filed on Feb. 5 in New York. Mr. Cooper's latest filing included emails and other documents that showed his disagreements with Hilliard may have started as early as fall 2014, when conflicts arose over discovery requests he was making in his own Georgia state court case. Mr. Cooper, in the Georgia case, first uncovered the ignition-switch defect. In a letter to Judge Furman on Feb. 7, Hilliard, Berman and Cabraser moved to strike many of Mr. Cooper's documents as protected under the work-product doctrine. On Feb. 8, Judge Furman ordered Mr. Cooper, who resigned from the MDL committee a year ago, to return all copies of documents that might be privileged. The judge temporarily sealed the material. Lead counsel also alleged Mr. Cooper had violated New York's rules of professional conduct by investigating a settlement Hilliard reached with GM on Sept. 17 on behalf of 1,380 of his own clients. Mr. Cooper has accused Hilliard of breaching his fiduciary duty to all the plaintiffs in the MDL by cutting a sweetheart deal with GM as part of that settlement in which he would put his own remaining cases as bellwether trials. Five of the six bellwether trials slated for this year are Hilliard's clients, including those that GM selected. In an email to the NLJ, Mr. Hilliard said Mr. Cooper's actions "are far ranging and professionally consequential." "There were a hundred other attorneys who sought and would have gladly accepted this appointment offered to Mr. Cooper," he wrote. "The myopic arrogance required to thumb his nose at the entirety of the process, from appointment to now, is mind numbing in its level of unprecedented and unprofessional behavior." Mr. Cooper replied: "People can read the briefs and determine who's behaved properly and who has not." The dispute has involved some of the most prominent mass tort professors in the country. In Mr. Cooper's reply, professor Charles Silver of the University of Texas School of Law wrote that a lead attorney in an MDL who strikes a settlement on behalf of his own clients has a conflict because he owes a fiduciary duty to all the claimants. Mr. Silver's declaration aims to rebut a Feb. 1 response by GM that included a declaration by New York University School of Law professor Geoffrey Miller. Mr. Miller argued that lead MDL attorneys still owe a duty to their own clients. GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets Due to Soy ------------------------------------------------------------ All lot codes up to and including February 8, 2016 of Giant Eagle brand Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets, prepared and sold from the Seafood department inside Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets through February 4, 2016 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared soy allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The product is safe for consumption by those who do not have soy allergies. Approximately 420 packages of Japanese Breaded Cod Fillets were purchased by customers in Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets in Pennsylvania and Ohio. There are no reported illnesses to date associated with this recall. The fillets were sold from the Seafood department with a UPC beginning with 268106. Giant Eagle became aware of the issue during ongoing ingredient declaration monitoring. The product label for the fillets, which contain soy, omitted soy as an allergen. Customers with a soy allergy who have purchased the affected product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST. In addition to this public communication regarding this recall, Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the affected product and have updated telephone contact information in the database. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/YOpP7b GOOGLE INC: Taps Cooley to Defend E-mail Scanning Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Google Inc. has brought on lawyers from Cooley to defend the company from claims that it violated a federal privacy statute by intercepting and scanning emails sent by students using its Apps for Education service. The suit puts Cooley in the familiar position of defending Google's scanning of emails to serve targeted ads. The firm helped defeat a bid for class certification in 2014 in In re Google Gmail Litigation, 13-2430, a prior suit that accused the company's ad-matching program of violating various federal and state privacy laws. Lawyers at Gallo LLP sued Google in January on behalf of four former UC-Berkeley students. According to the complaint, the students used a version of the company's email service that it offers for free to universities. Although Google said that users' messages wouldn't be scanned for advertising purposes, they were, the suit alleges. "Google's interception, reading, and interpreting of educational users' email for advertising purposes was not a necessary or instrumental component of Google's operation of a functioning email system, nor was it an incidental effect of providing this service," wrote Gallo's Ray Gallo in the complaint. The suit claims that Google violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which carries statutory damages of $10,000 for each plaintiff or $100 for each day depending on which is higher. The prior round of Gmail privacy suits survived a defense motion to dismiss before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in 2013 who ruled that Google's practice did not fall under an exemption in federal anti-surveillance laws for activities conducted by communications service providers in the "ordinary course of business." However, plaintiffs' claims fizzled after the judge denied class certification the following year, finding that she would have to determine how much each Gmail user knew about the company's practices to determine whether they consented to the scanning. Judge Koh also declined to certify a class of Google Apps for Education email users since disclosure at schools ranged from specific to vague, making the consent issue too murky for class treatment. Although the new complaint isn't styled as a class action, Mr. Gallo identifies 10 schools in addition to UC-Berkeley that the firm says made explicit assurances that Google would not scan users' emails for advertising purposes. In an email message Feb. 5, Mr. Gallo said that he anticipates bringing claims on behalf at other individuals at other schools, but that he likely won't seek class certification. Cooley's Michael Rhodes declined to comment. A spokesperson for Google didn't immediately respond to an email message. GOPRO INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that GoPro Inc., the maker of wearable cameras popular with skiers, surfers and other outdoor sports enthusiasts, has been hit with a string of securities class actions after a sharp dive in the company's share price. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd joined the fray on Feb. 4 with a suit alleging that the company failed to disclose declining sales trends, price pressure and rising inventories that indicated weak demand. San Mateo-based GoPro has missed its earnings targets the past two quarters due to weaker than expected sales for its new HERO Session line of cameras. The price of the latest camera in the line was cut from $399 to $299 in July, then again to $199 in December. The company announced in January that it would take a $30 million charge to account for its excess inventory and that it would lay off about 7 percent of its workforce. GoPro's stock price, which topped $64 in August, fell below $13 on January 14, the day after it released its preliminary fourth quarter results. GoPro shares closed at $9.78 on Feb. 4, and the company announced that chief financial officer Jack Lazar will be leaving the company in March. The Feb. 4 suit from Robbins Geller alleges that the company and executives, including Lazar, made false or misleading statements about the GoPro's financial health, causing its stock to be overvalued. The suit follows two similar complaints filed in January in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at Glancy Prongay & Murray and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer. The earlier suits have both been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar. A company representative didn't immediately respond to an email message. No lawyer has yet entered an appearance as defense counsel for GoPro. H-E-B: Recalls Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream Due to Wood Pieces ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the abundance of caution, H-E-B is issuing a voluntary recall for H-E-B Creamy Creations Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream due to the possible presence of wood pieces in the product. H-E-B is committed to the quality of its products. There have been no reports of illness. The voluntary recall impacts the following products: Description UPC Sell By Date ----------- --- ------------ H-E-B Creamy Creations 0 4122051877 7 SELL BY: 20 APR(APR)16 Caramel Pecan Turtle Ice Cream SELL BY: 10 MAY(MAY)16 SELL BY: 07 JUN(JUN)16 SELL BY: 18 JUL(JUL)16 Customers who purchased the product can return the product to the store for a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns may contact H-E-B Customer Service at 1-855-432-4438. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xL6Sfs HORMEL FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Contamination -------------------------------------------------------- Hormel Foods Corporation, a Tucker, Ga. establishment, is recalling approximately 450 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The Dinty Moore Beef Stew items were produced on Jan. 26, 2016. The following product is subject to recall: --- 15-oz. cans of "Dinty Moore Hearty Meals No Preservatives Beef Stew" with Best By date Feb. 2019 and production date T01266. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 199G" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to Kroger locations in Texas and Louisiana. Product was available for sale after Feb. 1, 2016. The problem was discovered during the plant's routine inspection activities. After discovering and recovering parts of a flashlight from the production area, the company placed all product produced during this timeframe on hold. However, 40 cases had already been shipped into commerce. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. HSBC: Reaches $470MM Mortgage Settlement with Gov't, 49 States -------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that banking giant HSBC has reached a $470 million settlement with the federal government and 49 states including Connecticut over mortgage lending and foreclosure abuses that officials say contributed to the country's economic meltdown. According to the Connecticut Attorney General's Office, the agreement requires the bank to pay $100 million and to provide an additional $370 million in consumer relief to borrowers and homeowners, including reducing mortgage interest rates as well as the principal on mortgages for homeowners who are at risk of default. The deal also requires the bank to improve standards for how it services loans and handles foreclosures. Officials say those changes are intended to discourage past banking practices, such as robosigning and poor-quality loans, that played a part in the financial crisis starting in 2007 in which millions of Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. "This settlement holds HSBC accountable for past abusive practices while also providing relief to borrowers here in Connecticut at a time when they can still use that help to save their homes," state Attorney General George Jepsen said, in a statement. "Through tough servicing standards, this agreement compels HSBC to treat its borrowers fairly in the future." Roughly 643 Connecticut borrowers whose loans were serviced by HSBC and who lost their home to foreclosure from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012 will be eligible. A spokesperson for Mr. Jepsen explained that those Connecticut borrowers will be eligible for a payment from a portion of the settlement designated specifically for that. The borrower payment amount will depend on how many borrowers file claims. Eligible borrowers will be contacted about how to qualify for payments. The HSBC agreement also requires the company to provide certain borrowers in Connecticut with loan modifications or other relief. The modifications include principal reductions and refinancing for underwater mortgages. The $100 million payment will go to the federal government and to an escrow fund administered by the states to make payments to borrowers who lost their homes. The other $370 million is part of the customer relief portion of the settlement. The settlement's consumer protections and standards include: making foreclosure a last resort by first requiring HSBC to evaluate homeowners for other loss mitigation options; restricting foreclosure while the homeowner is being considered for a loan modification; procedures and timelines for reviewing loan modification applications; giving homeowners the right to appeal denials; and requiring a single point of contact for borrowers seeking information about their loans, and maintaining adequate staff to handle calls. An independent monitor will also be appointed to oversee the bank's compliance with the settlement terms. That person will issue a report after a year of monitoring to identify whether HSBC complied or fell short of the standards imposed by the settlement. The civil settlement includes no criminal penalties, though officials said the state and federal government still have the option of pursuing criminal enforcement. "We are pleased to have reached this settlement and believe it is a positive result that benefits American homeowners and the U.S. housing industry," Kathy Madison, CEO, HSBC Finance Corp., said in a statement. "Throughout the housing market downturn, HSBC stayed focused on home preservation and approached foreclosure as a last resort option, and this agreement affirms our commitment to assisting customers who are facing financial difficulties." The agreement will be filed as a consent judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The settlement involves the departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Attorneys general from 49 states plus the District of Columbia signed on. In Connecticut, Assistant Attorneys General Joseph Chambers and Matthew Budzik, head of the Finance Department, assisted Mr. Jepsen in the settlement negotiations. ILLINOIS: Faces Suit Over Appropriated Private Property ------------------------------------------------------- Naper Comer TRP, LLC, as successor in interest to North Star Trust Company, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated January 12, 2005, and all others similarly-situated v. State of Illinois; Bruce Rauner, Governor of the State Of Illinois; Leslie Geissler Munger, Comptroller of the State Of Illinois; The Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois, Case No. 2015CH18640 (Ill. Cir., December 28, 2015), seeks compensatory damages, interests and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 section 15 of the Illinois Constitution. The Plaintiff alleged that the State of Illinois, including the Illinois Department of Transportation, has undisputedly appropriated private property for its own use. In the case of real property, such an appropriation is a per se taking that requires just compensation. However, since at least on or about July 1, 2015, the State of Illinois has failed to pay any compensation for its takings of private property from Plaintiff and the Class it seeks to represent. Defendant Bruce Rauner is the Governor of the State of Illinois. Defendant Leslie Geissler Munger is the Comptroller of the State of Illinois. Defendant State of Illinois is a sovereign. Defendant Illinois Department of Transportation is a department of the State government of the State of Illinois. The Plaintiffs is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Tel: (708) 628-4949 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Appellate Briefing to Be Held -------------------------------------------------------- Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing on a class action appeal is expected to occur during the first half of 2016. In April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency Trading) Defendants", which we refer to as the City of Providence lawsuit. New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of our subsidiaries, were among the named Exchange Defendants. On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all purposes, and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants, including New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., and also asserting claims against Barclays PLC, or Barclays, a subsidiary of which operates an alternative trading system known as Barclays LX. The lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of "all public investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by the remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amended complaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, as well as various forms of equitable relief. The defendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting the same legal claims and substantially the same factual allegations. On January 23, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state a claim against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and additionally that some of the claims against the exchanges were barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory organization immunity. On September 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the lawsuit. Briefing in the appeal is expected to occur during the first half of 2016. Intercontinental Exchange is a global operator of regulated exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of data services for commodity and financial markets. INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Oral Argument in "Lanier" Appeal Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument is scheduled to occur on March 3, 2016, on the appeal in the class actions by Harold Lanier. In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities exchanges that are participants in each of the three national market system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated Tape Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the Options Price Reporting Authority, or the Plans, -- which are established under the Exchange Act and regulated by the SEC. On August 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended complaints in each of the three lawsuits but did not alter the named defendants. New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, which are our subsidiaries, are among the defendants named in one or more of the suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated subscribers to the market data disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that the exchange participants in the Plans breached agreements with subscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatory manner in that other "preferred" customers allegedly received their data faster than the proposed class. The complaints seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution of the putative class's subscription fees paid to the defendants, disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-called preferred customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting the motion and dismissing the three lawsuits with prejudice. The court determined that the claims were preempted by a "comprehensive federal regulatory scheme", and that in any event Lanier had failed to state a claim for breach of contract. On May 20, 2015, Lanier filed notices of appeal of the dismissal of the lawsuits. Briefing in the appeals is complete and oral argument is scheduled to occur on March 3, 2016. Intercontinental Exchange is a global operator of regulated exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of data services for commodity and financial markets. INTERNATIONAL FOODSOURCE: Recalls Raw Pistachios Products --------------------------------------------------------- International Foodsource, LLC Issues a Voluntary Recall of Various Raw Pistachios Products due to Possible Salmonella Risk. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella can experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The products were distributed to food service and retail stores nationally. The affected products can be identified by: Product IFS Lot Weight Best by UPC ------- Number ------ Date --- ------- ------- Bulk Raw 76114 (Sam 30 LBS 4/29/16 N/A Whole International Boxes Pistachio Lot# 102914) 80% VP Valued Naturals 79249 5 oz Bags 08/10/16 790429241428 Raw Pistachio Kernels IFS Club 78634 3 LBS Bags 7/16/16 790429243026 Bag Pistachio 78998 30 LBS 07/30/16 790429239630 Raw Shelled Boxes 80% Wholes IFS Web Bulk Pistachio- Shelled 80% Whole There are no reported illnesses in connection with this product. This was brought to our attention by FDA after their contract testing laboratory analysis revealed the presence of Salmonella in one of the 19 retail 5oz bags of Valued Naturals Raw Pistachio Kernels, Lot 79249. As a precaution, additional products are being recalled as they may be contaminated since they were packed from the master lot that came to our facility. We are working closely with FDA to determine the cause of this situation. Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not consume it. They should return it to the point of purchase. Consumers with questions should call Customer Service at 973-361- 7044, 8:15 am - 4:30 pm, EST, Monday through Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/lRWr6f JEL SERT: Recalls Banana Cream Pie Filling Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------ The Jel Sert Company of West Chicago, Illinois, is issuing a voluntary recall notice for 52 cases of Margaritaville Banana Cream Pie Filling, 4.16 ounce carton that was used for sales samples and gift packages distributed nationwide, because it has the possibility to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illness such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses related to this product to date. The product was not available to consumers on store shelves, only through directly provided sales samples and gift packages. The product can be identified with the following information: Margaritaville Banana Cream Pie Filling 4.16 ounce carton Lot number on cartons: WC5257 UPC Code 7239202925 Best before date: September 2017 The recall was issued in an abundance of caution after the supplier of the banana chips used in the filling notified Jel Sert of possible contamination. If you have the recalled product, please dispose of the product and if you have questions contact Jel Sert at the toll free number: 866-853-1969 at any time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Xeu9zl KING SOOPERS: Recalls Gourmet Bread Pudding Due to Walnuts ---------------------------------------------------------- King Soopers of Denver, CO, has recalled its Gourmet Bread Pudding that is sold in their Deli, either as a part of their cold meal solutions, or pre-packaged in the self-service deli case. The product may contain walnuts not listed on the label. People who are allergic to walnuts could have a severe reaction if they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to walnuts, there is no safety issue with the product. One King Soopers customer has reported a possible allergic reaction in connection with this product. All stores operating under King Soopers or City Market are included. King Soopers has removed this item from store shelves and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products through register receipt tape messages and phone calls. King Soopers is recalling the following item: Product UPC Codes Size ------- ---------- ---- Gourmet Bread Pudding (Deli) PLU 670 Varies 247460-0XXXX Customers allergic to walnuts who have purchased the above product should not consume it and should return them to a store for a full refund or replacement. Customers who have questions may contact us at 1-800-KROGERS. King Soopers, Colorado's own full-service retail grocery chain, opened the doors of its first store in June of 1947 in Arvada, CO. Today the company employs over 23,000 associates and has 145stores and 73 fuel center locations. Recognized by Forbes as the most generous company in America, King Soopers supports hunger relief, breast cancer awareness, the military and their families, and more than 30,000 schools and grassroots organizations. King Soopers contributes food and funds equal to 25 million meals a year through local Feeding America food bank partners. KROGER: Former Call Center Workers File Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------- Alexander Coolidge, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that Kroger is being sued by three former call center workers that charge the supermarket giant with illegally classifying them as exempt employees ineligible for overtime. All three former workers, Joseph Hardesty, Derek Chipman and Madeline Hickey, were employed as recruiters at Kroger's call center in Blue Ash for five to seven months in 2015, according to a lawsuit filed on Feb. 8 in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. Their duties were to call and screen job applicants around the country, by asking three questions about applicants' interest in the company, their highest employment or academic achievements and how to show friendly service. Applicants who answered the questions well enough were assigned in-store job interviews, but call center workers never made hiring decisions. The lawsuit claims call center employees were required to show up 30 minutes before their shifts, return early from lunch breaks and work up to one hour after a day's calling. As a result, the workers put in 45 to 50 hours a week, but were paid no overtime. The lawsuit accuses Kroger of violating federal fair labor standards and Ohio's wage and labor laws. The suit also is seeking class-action status for other workers in the plaintiff's situation, back pay for the workers and attorney fees and interest. Kroger officials declined to comment on the suit. LIFELOCK INC: Incurs Loss Following $113MM FTC Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Hayley Ringle, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports that LifeLock Inc. reported its 43rd consecutive quarter of growth in revenue and members, but took a loss for the year after a $113 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commissio. The Tempe-based identity theft protection provider reported net income of $21.7 million, or 22 cents per share, on revenue of $156.2 million, for the fourth quarter that ended Dec. 31. This compares with net income of $2.8 million, or 3 cents per share, on revenue of $129.7 million for the same quarter a year ago. For the full year, LifeLock also reported a net loss of $52 million, or 55 cents per share, on revenue of $587.5 million. This included a pre-tax charge of $96 million related to the FTC settlement, a nationwide consumer class action suit, and a potential settlement with certain states' attorneys general. This compares with net income of $2.5 million, or 3 cents per share, on revenue of $476 million for 2014. The 2014 net income included $20 million related to a potential settlement with the FTC, which was partially offset by a $5 million legal settlement in LifeLock's favor resulting from indemnification claims the company previously made with its Lemon acquisition. LifeLock agreed to pay $113 million in December to settle long-running litigation with the Federal Trade Commission over complaints that the company made deceptive claims about its services. As part of the settlement, LifeLock neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. LifeLock CEO Todd Davis said the company expects the objection hearings to be completed in the second quarter and payments to class-action members to go out later this year. Because of the joint settlement, both sides need to approve the deal, said LifeLock Chief Financial Officer Chris Power. "The judge on the class action lawsuit approved it on a preliminary basis, but there are still a few steps needed until we get final approval," Mr. Power said on Feb. 10. Mr. Davis said despite the challenges, he is proud of LifeLock's employees. LIVING TREE: Recalls Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Living Tree Community Foods of Berkeley, California is recalling Organic Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Organic Macadamia Nuts and Organic Macadamia Butter were distributed throughout the US via retail stores (California, Connecticut) and to mail order customers. Living Tree Community Foods Organic Macadamia Nuts come in a 4 oz, clear plastic pouch marked with lot #153442 on the top. Living Tree Community Foods Organic Macadamia Butter comes in an 8 oz glass jar, with a Living Tree Community label on it. Affected lot #s were 134415, 136215, 101716. The UPC Code is: 641432000987. These items shipped from our facility between 12/11/2015 and 2/03/2016. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The potential for contamination was noted after FDA testing done with our supplier, Mahina Mele, based in Captain Cook, Hawaii, revealed the presence of Salmonella in organic macadamia nuts. Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the company continue their investigation as to the source of the problem. Consumers who have purchased 4 oz pouch of Organic Macadamia Nuts and 8 oz jars of Organic Macadamia Butter are urged to not consume and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-510-526- 7106. Our hours are from 8:30-4:30 PST, Monday thru Thursday and 8:30-3:00pm PST on Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/MiKAaB M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: "Alvarez" Case Scheduled for Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------- M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2016, that mediation is scheduled to occur in the Company's second fiscal quarter of 2016 in the lawsuit filed by Philip Alvarez against Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. On March 10, 2015, Philip Alvarez, a former employee of Mindspeed filed a putative class action lawsuit against Mindspeed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange. On April 24, 2015, Alvarez filed a First Amended Complaint adding the Company's subsidiary M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. as a defendant. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Alvarez and certain other employees who designed and manufactured hardware systems for Mindspeed or M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. between March 10, 2011 and the present were misclassified as exempt employees under California law. The lawsuit seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums, penalties and attorneys' fees. We dispute the allegations of the lawsuit. On June 15, 2015, Mindspeed removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, which Motion was denied in an Order dated September 9, 2015. The parties have reached an agreement for the dismissal of all class action allegations and claims in the action, as well as certain other claims against Mindspeed and M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. and Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint effectuating this agreement. Accordingly, the matter will proceed as an individual action by Alvarez seeking only his personal claims, as well as claims under the Private Attorneys' General Act. The parties have agreed to participate in a mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter, which mediation is scheduled to occur in the Company's second fiscal quarter of 2016. MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------- Mahina Mele Farms, LLC is expanding a voluntary recall of its macadamia nut products within expiry after FDA testing found Salmonella in macadamia nuts. One sample from LOT 30 was found to be positive for Salmonella Give.While we are not aware of any further positive samples, Mahina Mele Farms feels it is in the best interest of public health to voluntarily recall ALL lots currently on the market, until the source of the contamination can be identified. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Mahina Mele Farms is working with retailers to pull products from store shelves. To date no illnesses have been reported in connection with these products. Mahina Mele Farms, LLC produces macadamia nuts under the name Izzie Macs! in plastic bags and macadamia nut butter under the name Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut Buttah in plastic tubs. They were distributed from Oct 21, 2015 - Jan 20, 2016 and involve all products PRODUCT UPC SIZE ------- --- ---- Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076792677 6 oz. (salted) plastic bag Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076793575 6 oz. (unsalted) plastic bag Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076792776 16 oz. (unsalted) plastic bag Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076792974 16 oz. (salted) plastic bag Bulk Macadamia Nuts 5 lb. plastic bag (salted and unsalted; wholes and pieces) Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut Buttah 753182242019 12 oz. plastic tub Baby Bruddah's Chocolate Mac 73518224204 12 oz. Nut Buttah plastic tub In the interest of public health and safety, we are recalling all products. We are working closely with the FDA to find the source of this contamination. Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume them and should return them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund or replacement. Mahina Mele Farms, LLC will reimburse the wholesaler for any returned product. If you have any questions, call Mahina Mele Farms at 808 328 8987, Monday-Friday, 8-4 HST. Original Release: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm482670.htm MARIN PASTA: Recalls Pork Ravioli Products Due to Noncompliance --------------------------------------------------------------- Marin Pasta Works, a San Rafael, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 491 pounds of pork ravioli products that were produced without the benefit of federal inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The sausage, parmesan and spinach ravioli items were produced between Jan. 4, 2016 to Feb. 4, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 12-oz.vacuum-packaged packages containing pieces of "Sausage, Parm and Spinach Ravioli" with Best By Dates of Feb. 4 to March 4, 2016. These items were distributed to retail locations in California. The problem was discovered during FSIS surveillance activities conducted at a retail store in San Rafael, California. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/2FM3v5 MCKESSON CORP: Class Certification Bid in TCPA Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a TCPA class action lawsuit is pending. In May 2013, True Health Chiropractic, Inc. filed a class action against McKesson Corporation, claiming that McKesson sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA. The case is pending in the Northern District of California. True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., CV-13-02219 (HG). In August 2015, McKesson was granted a waiver from the opt out requirement from the Federal Communications Commission. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed for class certification. The Court's ruling on that motion is pending. META FINANCIAL: 3 Class Actions Filed Against MetaBank(R) --------------------------------------------------------- Meta Financial Group, Inc. (R) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that MetaBank(R) has been named as a defendant, along with other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv- 08372); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The complaints in each of these actions seek monetary damages for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or trade/business practices. Due to the recent filing of the complaints, the Company is evaluating the cases and has not yet filed an answer. MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Ex-Employee's Unpaid OT Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, reports that law firm Morgan & Morgan PLLC has agreed to pay a former employee the wages she alleged are owed because the firm misclassified case managers as exempt from overtime pay, resolving a proposed collective action, according to documents filed on Feb. 11 in Georgia federal court. In a joint motion on Feb. 11, the law firm and the ex-worker, Wanda Rosado, told U.S. District Judge Mark H. Cohen that the firm had agreed to pay her claims in full. MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Bradshaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------- Travis Bradshaw, Tommy McCulloch, Kort Smith, Stephen Williams, Shawn Cooper, and all others similarly-situated v. Multi-Shot, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00085 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant is a nationwide oilfield services company with significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NATURAL HEALTH: March 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC on Feb. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Natural Health Trends Corp. concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between March 6, 2015 and January 12, 2016. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in advance of the March 14, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, please click here, or contact Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via e-mail at brian@lundinlawpc.com According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that the operations of Natural Health Trends' Chinese entity is not in compliance with applicable Chinese laws. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm. No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles. NAVIENT CORP: April 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Navient Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Delaware, and docketed under 16-cv-00075, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Navient securities between May 9, 2014 and February 5, 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 Navient securities during the Class Period, you have until April 11, 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. Navient provides financial products and services in the United States. The company operates in four segments: Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFELP") Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services, and Other. The Company provides FFELP loans and servicing for FFELP loan portfolios; and servicing and asset recovery services for loans on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, guaranty agencies, higher education institutions, the United States Department of Education, and other federal clients, as well as states, courts, and municipalities. Navient also acquires, finances, and services private education loans. 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) the Company's loan servicing practices were not in compliance with applicable federal regulations; (ii) the Company's non-compliance with federal regulations could subject Navient and its subsidiaries to restitution, civil monetary penalties, and corrective actions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Navient's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 24, 2015, post-market, the Company reported that on August 19, 2015, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") had received a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ("NORA") letter providing notice that the CFPB's Office of Enforcement was considering recommending that CFPB take legal action against NSI related to a previously disclosed investigation regarding assessing late fees on student loans and other related misconduct, and that the CFPB might seek restitution, civil monetary penalties, and corrective action against NSI. On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.01, or nearly 7.73% to close at $12.05 on August 25, 2015. On February 6, 2016, U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton directed public attention to the subject of the CFPB's investigation of Navient during a speech at New England College in Henniker, New Hampshire, stating that Navient's "behavior is outrageous" and that the Company has been "misleading people" and "doing some really terrible things." On this news, Navient stock fell $0.57, or 5.99%, to close at $8.94 on the following trading day, February 8, 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. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. NET I: Securities Litigation Has Been Closed -------------------------------------------- Net 1 Ueps Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that on September 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the purported securities class action litigation originally filed on December 24, 2013, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. In its opinion, the District Court provided plaintiff with 30 days to file a second amended complaint. This deadline passed without plaintiff taking any action. Accordingly, the case has been closed. The plaintiff did not appeal and the Company considers this litigation over. NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: Settles Family Leave Suit for $700K ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that New Mexico State University has agreed to pay more than $700,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing the university of denying or discouraging faculty members from taking time off for family leave. According to The Las Cruces Sun-News, about 50 current or former nine-month faculty members who had a newborn, adopted a child or had a foster child placed with them qualify for the settlement. According to the class-action lawsuit, faculty members say they were discouraged from taking or denied leave which violates federal laws guaranteeing eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave. University officials say a paid leave benefit for faculty was in the works before the lawsuit, but the suit prompted them to roll out the policy change ahead of schedule NEXT MODEL: Fashion Models File Class Action Over Mistreatment -------------------------------------------------------------- Vittorio Hernandez, writing for International Business Times, reports that several fashion models in New York have filed a class-action lawsuit against modelling agencies in New York for mistreating and cheating them. Among the accusations they hurled is that they are not given any food during photo shoots that lasts 12 to 14 hours. Body positivity is one of the issues that the fashion industry is beginning to address. Sports Illustrated, for instance, got a 56- year-old, plus-size and British-Nigerian models for its 2016 swimsuit edition to highlight that models do not have to follow the old standard of being young and wafer-thin to be included in a fashion show or commercial shoot. However, other agencies are not that enlightened and over the years have "abused" their talents, accuses Vanessa Perron, a 31- year-old model. Ms. Perron is one of those who filed the class- action lawsuit with the Manhattan Supreme Court, reports The New York Post. "When we asked [to eat], we were told, 'Oh, you're a model, you're not supposed to eat," quotes Ms. Perron. Besides not given food during photo shoots, Ms. Perron recalls that even if she stands 5' 11" and she weighed only 110 pounds in 2002, Next Model Management, where she was signed, often told her to change her appearance, including the need to lose weight, whiten her teeth, tan her skin and color her hair at her personal expense. Ironically, Next Model Management has a contract with Tyra Banks' "America's Next Top Model" (ANTM) search. Banks is one of those pushing for a change in attitude towards model looks by accepting plus-size contestants and sending home anorexic-looking ones. Fasting, or not eating food, for a single day could cause multiple symptoms, according to Web MD. It could cause a headache because of hunger pangs, while an empty stomach could lead to heartburn and nausea. It could be emotionally and physically stressful and worsen existing stress. Another model, 48-year-old Carina Wretman, complains that when she was a model of Wilhelmina talent agency -- once linked also to ANTM -- agencies bilked young models by charging them for hair cosmetics, flights and pictures for their portfolios despite the models giving 20 percent commission fee and charging the client another 20 percent. Ms. Perron points out that the world of modeling is not as glitzy and glamorous as it appears because of these malpractices that the class-action lawsuit seeks to address. NOVARTIS AG: U.S. Unit Faces 21 Reclast Product Liability Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), is a defendant in 21 US product liability actions involving Reclast and alleging atypical femur fracture injuries, most of which are in New Jersey state or federal court coordinated with claims against other bisphosphonate manufacturers. There are also three Canadian putative class actions brought against numerous bisphosphonate manufacturers including NPC, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. and Novartis International AG in Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan. All claims are being vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Faces 395 Reglan Product Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's Sandoz division is a defendant, along with numerous manufacturers of brand pharmaceuticals, in 395 product liability actions in the state courts in Pennsylvania and California claiming that the use of metoclopramide, the generic version of the brand name drug Reglan(R), caused personal injuries including tardive dyskinesia. Sandoz denies the allegations and is vigorously contesting the claims. NOVARTIS AG: NPC Faces 12 Cases Over Tekturna, Rasilez & Valturna ----------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), and certain other Novartis affiliates are defendants in 12 individual lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (DNJ), and one in Alberta, Canada, claiming that treatment with Tekturna, Rasilez and/or Valturna caused renal failure, kidney disease or stroke. The claims are being vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Private Payors' Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), remains a defendant in a putative class action brought by private payors in New Jersey. Claims have been brought by various US state governmental entities against various pharmaceutical companies, including certain Sandoz entities and NPC, alleging that they fraudulently overstated the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) that is or has been used by payors, including state Medicaid agencies, to calculate reimbursements to healthcare providers. NPC and Sandoz reached settlements in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2015 of the Wisconsin and Utah claims against them for amounts that are not material to Novartis. Sandoz has filed a motion for reconsideration against a Mississippi Supreme Court decision which in the fourth quarter of 2015 upheld the $30 million Chancery Court verdict against it. NPC remains a defendant in an action brought by the state of Illinois and in a putative class action brought by private payors in New Jersey. The claims are being vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz Still Faces Solodyn(R) Claims ------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since the third quarter of 2013, approximately 16 putative class action complaints have been filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including Sandoz Inc. The cases have been consolidated and transferred for pretrial purposes to a federal district court in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers of Solodyn(R) branded products and assert violations of federal and state antitrust laws, including allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants, including Sandoz Inc., of patent litigation relating to generic Solodyn(R). Sandoz is vigorously contesting the claims. NOVARTIS AG: Alcon Still Faces Contact Lens Claims -------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since March 2015, more than 50 putative class action complaints have been filed in several courts across the US naming contact-lens manufacturers, including Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (ALI), and alleging violations of federal antitrust law as well as state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws of various states in connection with the sale of contact lenses. The cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of Florida by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the claims are being vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: NPC Still Faces Payors' Claims over Gleevec -------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since June 2015, the Company's US affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), Novartis Corporation (NC) and Novartis AG (NAG) have been sued in five putative class action complaints brought in federal district court in Massachusetts on behalf of proposed classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, including end-payors, of Gleevec. The complaints assert violations of federal antitrust law and various state laws, and seek to prevent Novartis from enforcing a previously reported 2014 agreement under which Sun Pharmaceuticals agreed not to launch a generic version of Gleevec, until February 1, 2016, as well as damages and other relief. The claims are being vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz & Momenta Sued in Tenn. over Enoxaparin ----------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Sandoz and Momenta Pharmaceuticals were sued in October 2015 in a putative antitrust class action in federal court in Tennessee alleging that Momenta and Sandoz engaged in anticompetitive conduct with regard to sales of enoxaparin, and the same allegations were made by Amphastar in a lawsuit filed in federal court in California (Sandoz, Momenta Pharmaceuticals and Amphastar are currently engaged in litigation concerning certain enoxaparin patents in federal court in Massachusetts). The claims are being vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: Continues to Defend Eye Drop Products Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend claims in eye drop products consumer class actions. Since November 2012, six putative consumer fraud class action litigations were commenced against Alcon Labs (and in four cases Sandoz) in federal courts in the Southern Districts of Illinois (S.D. Ill.) and Florida and the Districts of Missouri, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They claim that Alcon's, Sandoz's and many other manufacturers defendants' eye drop products were deceptively designed so that the drop dosage is more than necessary to be absorbed in the eye or there is too much solution in each bottle for the course of the treatment, leading to wastage and higher costs to patient consumers. Three cases remain pending in the S.D. Ill., D. Mass. and DNJ. Novartis is vigorously contesting the claims. NOVARTIS AG: Gender Discrimination Claims Against Alcon Settled --------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Alcon Laboratories and Novartis Corp. were sued in March 2015 in an individual and collective action filed in the Southern District of New York. The parties negotiated a class settlement and a settlement for the individual plaintiffs (excluding one plaintiff) for an amount that is not material to Novartis, which settlements and amended complaint were filed with the court for approval in December 2015. The claims assert inter alia gender discrimination, pay discrimination and retaliation at Alcon. The one remaining individual claim continues to be vigorously contested. NOVARTIS AG: NPC Continues to Defend Zometa & Aredia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's US affiliate, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), continues to defend claims related to the Zometa/Aredia product liability litigation. NPC had been a defendant in more than 880 cases brought in US courts in which plaintiffs generally claimed to have experienced osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femur fracture after treatment with Zometa or Aredia, which are used to treat patients whose cancer has spread to the bones. Nearly all the cases have been resolved through voluntary dismissals, pre-trial motion practice, trial, or settlements, the payments of which were not material to Novartis. Three cases where NPC prevailed at the trial level remain on appeal, and one other case remains pending. The remaining claims are being vigorously contested, but they are not material to Novartis. NOVARTIS AG: Excedrin Consumer Class Action Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG and Novartis Inc. said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that one Excedrin consumer class action remains pending against Novartis. Four putative class actions were brought in December 2013 and January 2014 against Novartis and its consumer health unit. They generally claim that it was a deceptive practice to sell Excedrin Migraine at a higher price than Excedrin Extra Strength when the two have the same active ingredients, even though the products have different labels and clearly disclose their active ingredients. In 2014, three of the four putative class actions were dismissed; the remaining one is not material to Novartis. OUTERWALL INC: Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court's Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------ Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appellate court has affirmed the trial court's rulings in a consumer class action complaint. "In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois," the Company said. "The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief." "In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. "The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. "On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion on December 11, 2014. "The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. Oral argument was held November 10, 2015. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's rulings on January 11, 2016. "We continue to believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter should plaintiff seek further appellate review. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate." PATIENT FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tropper" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Yaakov Tropper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Patient Financial Services, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 08891-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Patient Financial Services is a department within Johns Hopkins Health System Finance that assists uninsured and underinsured individuals and families in paying for urgent and medically necessary services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PALERO MEAT: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Freddy Zapata, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Palero Meat Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10090 (S.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Palero Meat Corp. operates a meat shop and fish market in Bronx, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com PETROBRAS: Must Face Investor Class Action, Judge Rules ------------------------------------------------------- Petro Global News reports that a U.S. federal judge has ruled that Brazil's Petrobras must face class action lawsuits filed by investors looking to recover losses tied to the company's ongoing corruption scandal. In a decision released on Feb. 9, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan granted class action status to two classes of plaintiffs who brought suits against Petrobras, Reuters said. One of plaintiff classes covers Petrobras securities purchased from January 2010 to July 2015 and will be headed by UK-based Universities Superannuation Scheme. The second class covers securities that were purchased in 2013 and 2014 and will be led by North Carolina's treasurer and the Employees' Retirement System of Hawaii, Reuters said. Judge Rakoff appointed Pomerantz LLP to represent both classes. An affiliate of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Petrobras's auditor, was listed as a defendant in the suits along with over a dozen bank underwriters, the news wire added. Neither Petrobras nor PricewaterhouseCoopers have commented on the ruling. Brazilian prosecutors have alleged that several Petrobras employees helped orchestrate a price-fixing and bribery scheme tied to company contracts. A corruption probe, known as Operation Lava Jato, has already landed some former executives in jail and ensnared high level Brazilian politicians, including lower house speaker Eduardo Cunha. The scandal has dragged Petrobras shares down to $3.41 per share around noon on Feb. 11 from a high of $41.48 per share in August 2011. Earlier this month, Petrobras slashed its 2015 proven reserves on by just over 3 billion barrels, citing revisions to reserve estimates at its pre-salt wells. The company announced in January that it will slash its management headcount by at least 30 percent in an effort to cut costs. PETROBRAS: International Investors Mull Class Action Over Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Maritime Executive reports that a group of international investors and law firms are seeking compensation from Brazil's state-led oil company Petrobras under European law for losses allegedly suffered as the result of a giant price-fixing, bribery and political kickback scandal. Netherlands-based Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation (SPCF) has informed Petrobras of its interest in negotiating a settlement, the group said in a statement released on Feb. 10. If Petrobras refuses talks or declines to respond, the SPCF plans to file a class-action suit against the Rio de Janeiro-based company in a Dutch court in Rotterdam, the statement said. When the fraud and bribery schemes "orchestrated by the company's administration and employees were finally uncovered in 2014, investors lost billions of dollars, euros and reais resulting in significant declines in the value of assets and breakneck drops in the price of Petrobras shares," SPCF said. Petrobras did not immediately respond to a request for comment. SPCF believes it has a claim against Petrobras under European securities law because the company's shares are traded through Spain's Latibex on the Madrid Stock Exchange. Trades are cleared through Spain's Iberclear. As a result, SPCF says, Petrobras is subject to the rules of Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV), Spain's stock regulator. When Petrobras sold securities in Europe it also made it clear that it would be subject to Europe-wide securities rules under European Securities and Markets Authority, the foundation added. Investors in the United States have already filed suit in a New York federal court claiming that Petrobras' U.S.-traded shares make the company subject to U.S. securities law. However, the judge in the case has limited potential redress to those who bought Petrobras securities registered in the United States. The SPCF is seeking redress not only for losses on Petrobras stock on the Latibex but for those who lost money on Brazil's BM&FBovespa Exchange in Sao Paulo and for owners of Euro- denominated bonds. "The foundation provides a vehicle to litigate on behalf of Petrobras investors and/or to establish a binding settlement that, together with the U.S. class action provides for a truly global settlement," the SPCF said. Lemstra Van der Korst N.V., a Dutch litigation and class action law firm, is cooperating with securities litigation firms Withers LLP, Motley Rice and Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart to organize the legal action. PGA TOUR: Professional Caddies Lose Bib Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The Irish Times reports that professional caddies were scheduled to meet at Pebble Beach and discuss whether to continue fighting the PGA Tour after losing a class action lawsuit contending they were forced to wear bibs featuring corporate logos that made them "human billboards". One caddie said he had lost the stomach to appeal the ruling, while the president of the caddies' association told Golf Channel he was ready to put the matter behind him. The lawsuit, filed just over a year ago in US federal court in California, said the PGA Tour threatened to prevent the caddies from working at tournaments organized and promoted by the organization if they refused to wear the bibs. The lawsuit also claimed that the PGA Tour reaps more than $50 million annually from the endorsements, but the caddies receive no compensation. Permanent injunction However United States District Judge Vince Chhabria on Feb. 9 dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, saying: "The caddies' overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour has merit, but this federal lawsuit about bibs does not." The caddies were seeking a permanent injunction against the practice of wearing bibs on the course. Mike Hicks, the lead plaintiff, has been a caddie for nearly 35 years and has worked for leading golfers such as Greg Norman, Payne Stewart, Steve Stricker and Justin Leonard. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 168 caddies in the US who wear or have worn bibs with the logos of the PGA Tour's sponsors, claimed the Tour interfered with the caddies' ability to compete in the market, alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract and violations of California state law. Now that the judge has dismissed the lawsuit, each of the 168 caddies must decide individually whether to appeal. The caddies had a previously-scheduled meeting planned at the PGA Tour stop in Pebble Beach, California on Feb. 10. The lawsuit ruling immediately went to the top of the unofficial agenda. "To be honest, I don't think I really want to continue," said one caddie, who asked not to be named. "The system has spoken." Mentally draining He added that the lawsuit had been mentally draining and that he wanted to get back to focusing on his job. James Edmondson, president of the Association of Professional Tour Caddies, sounded a similar theme. "I respect the court's decision and do not plan to go any further with it," he told GolfChannel.com. The PGA Tour said in a statement that they were "pleased by the court's decision" in their favor. "We look forward to putting this matter behind us and moving forward in a positive direction with the caddies." In his ruling, judge Chhabria said: "Caddies have been required to wear the bibs for decades. So caddies know, when they enter the profession, that wearing a bib during tournaments is part of the job. In other words, the bib is the primary part of a caddie's uniform." PRINCE GEORGE, WA: School Board Sued Over Child Pornography ----------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Beth Hensley and Michelle Basch, writing for WTOP, report that a class-action lawsuit, filed against a Prince George's County school after a volunteer aide was accused of capturing pornographic video of children there, claims the sex acts occurred in a city municipal building as well. The suit was filed on Feb. 11 against the Prince George's County Board of Education, Judge Sylvania Woods Elementary School Principal Michelle Williams, and Deonte Carraway -- the aide who is charged with 10 felonies, including making child pornography, soliciting children and child sexual abuse. He was being held in lieu of $1 million bail. The suit seeks monetary damages of a minimum of $75,000 for each victim. Police say 12 victims have been identified and it has received 30 calls to its tip line (301-772-4930). The suit identifies "John Doe #2" -- an 11-year-old fifth grader at the Glenarden, Maryland, school -- as a victim and that Carraway "coerced [the 11-year-old] to engage in sexual acts with him on school property during school hours." Also, it alleges that the sexual acts occurred at Glenarden Municipal Center where Carraway hosted the school's choir practice. "John Doe #2" participated in the choir, the suit says. The two communicated through the Kik messaging app, according to the suit. In a separate lawsuit filed by the same attorneys, the guardian of a 9-year-old student at the school sued the same parties after it said the boy's uncle discovered images and messages Mr. Carraway had sent the boy using Kik. Both suits say "Carraway's abuse was common knowledge among students at Sylvania Woods. Parents and teachers at Sylvania Woods Elementary School had expressed concern and/or raised issues about Carraway's predatory behavior to Principal Michelle Williams, but she took no action." Ms. Williams has been placed on administrative leave, school officials said Feb. 10. On Feb. 11, parents were invited to a closed-door meeting at Judge Sylvania Woods Elementary in Glenarden to give them the latest on the sex abuse case. Members of the media were not allowed inside, but WTOP spoke with someone who was. Clinton, who declined to give his last name, says he has two grandchildren who are current students at the school. Both police and school leaders were at the meeting. "They answered quite a few questions, but they still left a lot of unanswered questions," he said. One of the questions he still wants answered? "How did he get total access to the children. Unimpeded." One question he asked officials at the meeting was, "Did you get everybody?" Leaders told him they couldn't talk about whether other school staffers were involved, because the investigation is ongoing. "As far as who's involved and what's involved, we're not getting past 'We've got people in place to help you and your child,'" he said. He calls that "somewhat understandable" and was glad to hear at the meeting that the victims and families in the case were being given the most information about the investigation. Jackie Bensen, Meagan Fitzgerald and Andrea Swalec, writing for NBC Washington, report PGCPS officials said in an update on Feb. 11 that they will do to keep students safe: "At the administrative level, PGCPS leaders met with the Judge Sylvania Woods community to share information on the incident and review policies and procedures for reporting abuse and suspicious activity. Counseling and psychological support will be provided to students and families upon request, and those services will remain in place as long as they are needed. A second meeting will take place at the school this evening." "Dr. Maxwell will also convene a taskforce of internal and external partners to review current policies and procedures and identify areas of immediate improvement. The district will also consult with national experts in this field to ensure the taskforce recommendations are aligned with best practices from across the country. "[This] week, staff from the PGCPS Office of General Counsel will address principals during a systemic principals' meeting and review all laws, policies, and procedures related to an employee's obligation to report abuse and suspicious behavior. "At the school level, principals will hold mandatory meetings with staff to review the August 2015 training materials and October 2015 memorandum on procedures for reporting abuse and suspicious activities. Professional school counselors will reach out to students and conduct lessons in the classroom that address the differences between appropriate and inappropriate physical contact; personal body safety rules and when to use them; and how to identify trusted adults to whom they can report when they feel unsafe. "We will work closely with our community partners and use all possible resources to foster a safe and supportive environment for all students and families," added Dr. Maxwell. "It goes without saying that these type of acts are intolerable and unacceptable." If parents or community members have any additional information regarding this case, they should call 1-800-CALL-FBI. PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Settlement Reached in MCG Merger Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Pennantpark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit plan to file a stipulation of settlement with the court, which provides for, among other things, settlement of the complaint. The Company said, "On August 18, 2015, we completed the acquisition of MCG Capital Corporation, or MCG, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2015, by and among MCG, our Investment Adviser and the Company. As a result of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, MCG was ultimately merged with and into PFLT Funding II, LLC with PFLT Funding II, LLC as the surviving company." "Between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, a number of putative class action lawsuits were filed by former stockholders of MCG challenging our acquisition of MCG in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint alleged that MCG's directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, not protecting against their supposed conflicts of interest and failing to take steps to maximize the consideration to be received by MCG's former stockholders in our acquisition of MCG. The consolidated complaint also alleged that the Company and the Investment Adviser aided and abetted the MCG directors' purported breach of fiduciary duties. We believe that the consolidated complaint is without merit. "On July 30, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an agreement in principle to settle the class action complaint. The parties plan to file a stipulation of settlement with the court, which provides for, among other things, settlement of the class action complaint. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the court will approve the settlement. PETROLVALVES: "Foy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Foy, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Petrolvalves, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03727 (S.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Petrolvalves, LLC manufactures and services valves for the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa MOORE, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Chides Lawyers Over Litigation Strategy ------------------------------------------------------------ Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that U.S. tobacco companies on Feb. 8 drew the ire of a federal judge in Washington, who accused them of trying to "stall" their obligation to pay for public ads about the health risks of smoking. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote that the tobacco companies -- represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Stafford Rosenbaum; and Baker & Hostetler -- had attempted to re- litigate issues related to the contents of the so-called "corrective statements" ads. "That is ridiculous -- a waste of precious time, energy, and money for all concerned -- and a loss of information for the public," Judge Kessler wrote. "The court has no intention of following that path, although it is obvious that defendants are, once again, attempting to stall any final outcome to this long-standing litigation." Judge Kessler in 2006 ordered tobacco companies to pay for nationwide print, television and radio ads that listed the health risks of smoking. The case dates to 1999, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil racketeering suit that accused tobacco companies of deceiving the public about their products. In 2015, in one of several trips that the case has made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an appeals panel said Kessler couldn't require that the ads highlight her conclusion that the tobacco companies "deliberately deceived" consumers. The ads need to be forward-looking, the appeals court said. Judge Kessler rejected the tobacco companies' proposal for a new version of the ads, finding that they attempted to rewrite language the D.C. Circuit approved. She adopted the government's proposed text, which states the tobacco companies were "ordered" by a federal judge to make certain statements about their products. Gibson Dunn partner Miguel Estrada -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com -- lead counsel for Altria Group Inc. and Philip Morris USA Inc., referred a request for comment to his clients. A representative of Altria, which is Philip Morris' parent company, did not immediately return a request for comment. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is represented by Jones Day and Stafford Rosenbaum of Madison, Wisconsin. Jones Day partner Noel Francisco did not immediately return a request for comment. Baker & Hostetler represents ITG Brands LLC, Commonwealth Brands Inc. and Commonwealth-Altadis Inc., which were not defendants but would be affected by Kessler's judgment. Baker & Hostetler partner Elizabeth McCallum was not immediately reached. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department called Kessler's decision "the latest step in the Department of Justice's long-standing racketeering case against the tobacco companies, in which a federal court found that the tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public about the health consequences of smoking." Howard Crystal -- hcrystal@meyerglitz.com -- of counsel to Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks in Washington, who represents public health groups in the case, said that if history "is any guide, there is certainly cause for concern" that the tobacco companies would appeal Kessler's order. "I think it's safe to say that [Kessler] believes that the defendants are trying to delay the issuance of the corrective statements and that's certainly the concern that my clients have had for many, many years -- that the defendants have done and continue to do whatever they can to delay the day of reckoning," Mr. Crystal said. PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: "Arakaki" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Arakaki v. Platinum Limousine Services, Inc., Kurt Tsuneyoshi, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00536 (D. Hawaii, December 24, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a chauffeured transportation company located at 4192-A Huanui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Holcomb, Esq. HOLCOMB LAW, A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW CORPORATION 1136 Union Mall, Suite #808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 545-4040 Facsimile: (808) 356-1954 E-mail: rholcomblaw@gmail.com - and - Timothy Mac Master, Esq. Attorney at Law 1088 Bishop Street, Suite 209 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 591-8080 QLOGIC CORP: Still Faces "Hull" Lawsuit in California ----------------------------------------------------- QLogic Corporation continues to face a class action lawsuit by Phyllis Hull, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2015. In September 2015, a purported class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting claims arising under federal securities laws against the Company and certain individual defendants. The plaintiff, Phyllis Hull, purports to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, including a former officer and a current officer, engaged in a scheme to inflate the Company's stock price by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations, financial results and future business prospects in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. QLogic designs and supplies high performance server and storage networking connectivity products that provide, enhance and manage computer data communication. QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Filing Stays Class Suits --------------------------------------------------- Quiksilver, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that securities class action lawsuits against the Company remain stayed pending its bankruptcy proceedings. In April 2015, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions: Leiland Stevens, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et al. and Shiva Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et al. On June 26, 2015, the court consolidated these lawsuits and named Babulal Parmar as the lead plaintiff. On August 25, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action. The amended complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class period in this action is from June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The complaint seeks designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the potential impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The Company has not recorded a liability for this matter. On September 21, 2015, the court entered an order staying the action pending bankruptcy proceedings. On September 9, 2015, Quiksilver and each of its wholly owned U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. RAMS: Faces Class Action Over PSL Contract Reimbursement -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Rovell, writing for ESPN, reports that a Los Angeles Rams season-ticket holder, who owned two tickets to the team's games in St. Louis, has filed a class-action suit against the team in district court in Missouri, seeking to be paid back for the years of his personal seat license (PSL) that won't be honored. Ronald McAllister bought one PSL in 1995 and another 10 years later, both of which gave a fan the right to purchase a season ticket through the 2024 season. Mr. McAllister says he, and any other fan who purchased a PSL, is entitled to get back a percentage of what they paid. He is asking that PSL owners be refunded a percentage of their money based on the number of years left on the contract (nine) compared to the overall length of their contract with the Rams. Mr. McAllister, for example, says the Rams owe him, and others who purchased a PSL in 1995, 9/30 or 30 percent of their money back. For the second PSL he bought in 2005, McAllister says he's entitled to get back 9/20, or 45 percent, of his purchase price. While the PSL agreement says that the PSL owner can't sue the team, including "should the team not play its home games in the stadium or in St. Louis for any reason," lawyers for McAllister argue that the contract is a sham because it allows the Rams to default on their part of the deal without consequence and but doesn't allow ticket holders the same luxury. If PSL payments are not made, the Rams have the unilateral right to no longer offer that fan a ticket. "To terminate the PSLs of plaintiff and other class members while refusing to refund the amounts paid for the unusable portions is unfair because it violates the duty of good faith, unilaterally breaches unambiguous provisions of consumer contracts, and is unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous," the lawsuit said. The suit, which charges the Rams with unjust enrichment, breach of contract and breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing, says the team's conduct is in violation of the Missouri Merchandise Practices Act and seeks more than $5 million in refunds. A message left for a Rams official was not returned. RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schacher" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caryn Schacher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. d/b/a AMCA a/k/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-07285- DLI-RML (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Retrieval Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. owns and operates a collection agency located at 4 Westchester Plaza, Elmsford, NY 10523. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reizman" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Yizhak Reizman and Heny Reizman, Husband and Wife, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv- 08853-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., December 25, 2015) seeks redress for the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. operates a collection agency with its principal office located at 1247 Broadway, Sonoma, California 95476-7503. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin G. Kelsen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN G. KELSEN, ESQ. LLC 1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Telephone: (201) 692-0073 Facsimile: (201) 692-0151 E-mail: info@kelsenlaw.com RMCN CREDIT: "Biller" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- Nathan Biller, and all others similarly-situated v. RMCN Credit Services, Inc., Douglas Parker and Julie Parker, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00043 (E.D. Tex., January 12, 2016), seeks damages for Defendants' failure to pay wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a credit repair business in McKInney, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Defending Suits Related to Cameron Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Schlumberger N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending multiple lawsuits related to its merger with Cameron International Corporations. On August 26, 2015, Schlumberger and Cameron jointly announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement in which Cameron will merge with an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger in a stock and cash transaction. "Multiple lawsuits have been filed against us and Cameron challenging the proposed merger, and an adverse ruling in any such lawsuit may prevent the merger from being completed," the Company said. "After the announcement of the proposed merger, four putative class action lawsuits were commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cameron against Cameron and its directors, as well as against us and Schlumberger Holding Corporation and Rain Merger Sub (both of which are indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries). These lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes and a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") was filed. The Consolidated Complaint seeks various remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated, rescission of the merger to the extent already implemented and the plaintiffs' costs and fees. Additional lawsuits with similar allegations may be filed. "While we believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against such claims, the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is that no law, order, injunction, judgment, decree, ruling or other similar requirement shall be in effect that prohibits the completion of the merger. Accordingly, if any of the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the completion of the merger, then that injunction may prevent the merger from becoming effective, or delay its becoming effective." SOLARWINDS INC: Sued in Tex. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- John Thomas Moore Rollover Ira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Solarwinds, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01228 (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Headquartered at 7171 Southwest Parkway, Building 400, Austin, Texas, Solarwinds, Inc. develops enterprise information technology infrastructure management software for IT professionals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Marin BOULETTE GOLDEN & MARIN L.L.P. 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 530 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 732-8900 Facsimile: (512) 732-8905 E-mail: mmarin@boulettegolden.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Marc S. Henzel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 660-8000 Facsimile: (610) 660-8080 SPOTIFY USA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement ------------------------------------------------------------- David Lowery, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Spotify USA Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09929- BRO-RAO (C.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted musical works that the Defendant has used without mechanical licenses in an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement. Spotify USA Inc. operates an interactive commercial music streaming service that operates an Internet website permitting users to customize listening choices for recorded music and to create Internet "radio stations." The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanford L. Michelman, Esq. Mona Z. Hanna, Esq. Melanie Natasha Howard, Esq. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP 17901 Von Karman Avenue, 10th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (714) 557-7990 Facsimile: (714) 557-7991 E-mail: smichelman@mrllp.com mhanna@mrllp.com mhoward@mrllp.com - and - David C. Lee, Esq. Ilse C. Scott, Esq. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP One Post Street, Suite 2500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 882-7770 Facsimile: (415) 882-1570 E-mail: dlee@mrllp.com iscott@mrllp.com SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Completed in Clearwire Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Sprint Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is substantially complete in the lawsuit filed by Clearwire Corporation stockholders. Sprint is a defendant in a complaint filed by stockholders of Clearwire asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Sprint Communications, and related claims and otherwise challenging the Clearwire Acquisition. ACP Master, LTD, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., was filed April 26, 2013, in Chancery Court in Delaware. The Company's motion to dismiss the suit was denied, and discovery is substantially complete. Plaintiffs in the ACP Master, LTD suit have also filed suit requesting an appraisal of the fair value of their Clearwire stock. Discovery in that case was consolidated with the breach of fiduciary duty case and is substantially complete. Sprint intends to defend the ACP Master, LTD cases vigorously. Sprint is one of the largest wireless communications companies in the U.S., as well as a provider of wireline services. STATE FARM: Court Issues Opinion on Labor Depreciation Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on Feb. 10 the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, a putative class action alleging that State Farm, in estimating the "actual cash value" of property damage under homeowners' insurance policies, improperly applied depreciation to the labor component of the replacement cost of damaged structures. A question pertaining to whether depreciation can properly be applied to labor costs was certified by Minnesota's federal district court to the state supreme court. On Feb. 11, the court held that "absent specific language in the insurance policy that identifies a method of calculating actual cash value, the trier of fact must determine whether depreciation of embedded labor components 'logically tend[s] to the formation of a correct estimate of the loss." (Slip op. at 3.) In other words, the court concluded that determining the correct amount of the "actual cash value," based on all applicable factors, is an issue that should generally be decided by an appraisal panel or the finder of fact at trial, typically based on expert testimony. The court further concluded that this determination "depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case (id. at 10), which means that class certification on this issue is unlikely. This decision is more favorable to insurers' positions than some of the other recent decisions on this issue (see my January 18 blog post for more on those). Key points from this decision include: The court ruled that "actual cash value" is not ambiguous because it is "a legal term of art that refers to the 'actual loss' sustained by the insured." (Slip op. at 7.) The term "actual cash value" is well-defined by case law in most jurisdictions. The court relied on its prior adoption of the "broad evidence rule" for determining actual cash value. It explained that the "broad evidence rule" is "a flexible approach that allows the trier of fact to consider 'every fact and circumstance which would logically tend to the formation of a correct estimate of the loss.'" (Slip op. at 7.) The court explained that "the broad evidence rule does not dictate whether labor is depreciable or is not depreciable." Rather, it is a factor to consider, and "certain embedded labor costs may be depreciable, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case." (Id. at 8.) The court rejected the position that depreciation of embedded labor costs is illogical, explaining that "arguments about whether labor-cost depreciation is 'logical' according to accepted methods of appraisal in a given case are best presented to an appraisal panel or via expert testimony before a jury." (Id. at 9.) The court noted that "[t]he appraisal of real estate includes elements of both art and science," and "[i]t is not the role of the judiciary to define best practices for appraisers without regard for the facts and circumstances of the case presented." (Id. at 9.) The court also noted that insurers can revise their policy language to specifically address this issue. Overall, this is a significant victory for insurers who are defending putative class actions on this issue across the country. The court's ruling that the question of whether embedded labor costs are appropriately depreciated is a case-by-case determination means that class certification is likely to be denied. This is because any common issues of law and fact (if any exist) likely will not predominate over individual issues concerning the nature and extent of the damage to each individual property, and the appropriate calculation of the actual cash value of the damage at issue. SUMMIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Koroman" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Zoran Koroman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 08916-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., December 29, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Summit Collection Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency at 50 N Franklin Tpke, Ho Ho Kus, NJ. 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 SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Khristie Cabrera, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated v. Summit Entertainment Corporation d/b/a Gentlemen's Quarters, and Phillip Tricolla, Case No. 1:15-cv-07372 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment bar located at 2151 Grand Avenue, Baldwin, NY 11510, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. One Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563-7475 E-mail: szabell@laborlawsny.com SUPERIOR COOLING: "Duran" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursements ----------------------------------------------------------- Mario Bautista Duran, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Superior Cooling LLC and Mendy Israel, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv- 07243 (E.D.N.Y., December 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation and uniform maintenance pay, statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, New York Labor Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Duran worked as a mechanic and installer and claims to have worked approximately seven days per week without overtime compensation and that he paid for his uniform in cash and was never reimbursed for laundry services. Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant failed to provide a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, and failed to maintain accurate and sufficient employment records. Superior Cooling operates an HVAC service and installation company, doing business as Superior Cooling and Heating, located at 193 20th Street, Brooklyn, New York, and is owned by Mendy Israel. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Tel: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com SWEETWATER POOLS: Faces "Tucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Sara Alice Tucker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sweetwater Pools, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv- 03736 (S.D. Tex., December 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Sweetwater Pools, Inc. is a Texas corporation that operates a swimming pool construction, maintenance, and management services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Julian, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation, Inc. and Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01212-UNA (D. Del., December 29, 2015) arises out of Swift's failure to compensate its hourly, nonexempt trainee truck drivers. The Defendants are engaged in the business of long-haul trucking, logistics, and ground transportation in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Aber, Esq. One Customs House, Suite 600 704 N. King Street, P.O. Box 1675 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-4900 E-mail: gaber@gablawde.com - and - Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com SYMANTEC CORP: Awaits Final Class Action Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Corporation is awaiting final approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2016. On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005, and March 10, 2011. In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court granted approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid by the Company. A final approval hearing was held on January 19, 2016, and the Company is awaiting the Court's order on final approval. SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces "Mintz" Suit in N.Y. Over Automated Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mintz and Toni Marie Mintz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv- 07344-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making a call to the Plaintiff's wireless phone using an automated telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice. Synchrony Bank operates banking & finance company located at 170 Election Road, Suite 125, Draper, Utah 84020. TALK OF THE TOWN: Faces "Romanofsky" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Romanofsky v. Talk of The Town Diner I, Inc. d/b/a The Talk Restaurant and Kazar Keuchkarian, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-14224 (D. Mass., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work of over 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as "The Talk Restaurant" located at 116 Main Street, Watertown, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: William T. Harrington, Esq. 171 Milk Street, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 426-7400 E-mail: wharringtonlaw@gmail.com TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing Plaintiffs Object to Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Order Routing lawsuits have objected to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the five lawsuits. The Plaintiffs have objected to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TD AMERITRADE: March 4 Final Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the court has set a final approval hearing date of March 4, 2016, on the settlement in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation. During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now known as "Yield Plus Fund -- In Liquidation"), which is being liquidated. In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund. On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle the claims against them, subject to court approval. On March 26, 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims against the Company and its directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants, subject to definitive written terms that required court approval. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to make a cash contribution of $3.75 million toward a class settlement fund. On November 23, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and notices to class members, as well as setting a final approval hearing date of March 4, 2016. The Company paid its $3.75 million contribution to the class settlement fund on December 4, 2015. Notices to class members were mailed by the claims administrator on December 8, 2015. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, Calif., gave her stamp of approval on a stipulation dismissing a class action lawsuit filed by Abhishek Agrawal against TerraForm Global, Inc., SunEdison, Inc., and other defendants. Agrawal has not been offered and is not receiving any consideration for dismissing the Action. The Stipulation provides that: "[T]here are at least six other class action suits based on substantially and materially identical factual allegations, seeking substantially and materially the same legal and equitable relief, against the same or similar group of Defendants, currently pending before this Court. Accordingly, dismissal of this Action without prejudice will not result in any harm or prejudice to TerraForm shareholders." The Stipulation, approved by the Judge on February 10, 2016, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Rk2Lwrfrom Leagle.com, was entered into by counsel to the case parties. Abhishek Agrawal commenced Case No. CIV 536045 on October 30, 2015 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The other cases, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06328-BLF; Badri v. TerraForm Global Inc. et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-06323-BLF; Fraser v. Wuebbels, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-06326-BLF; and Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00073-BLF, were each filed in San Mateo County Superior Court between October 2015 and January 2016. The Defendants on December 30, 2015, removed those cases, except the Patel action, to Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The Patel case was removed on January 6, 2016. The Plaintiffs have filed motions to remand those actions back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Defendants have filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, and the Court granted the administrative motion on January 20, 2016. The Defendants filed oppositions to the motions to remand in the other actions. The cases are, ABHISHEK AGRAWAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 15-cv-06322-BLF, CIV 536045 (N.D. Cal.). The other defendants are Ahmad Chatila; Carlos Domenech Zornoza; Jeremy Avenier; Martin Truong; Brian Wuebbels; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Barclays Capital Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; BTG Pactual US Capital LLC; Ita£ BBA USA Securities, Inc.; SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. Abhishek Agrawal is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. David Conrad Walton, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 288-4545 Fax: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian Edward Cochran, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank James Johnson, Esq. Johnson & Weaver, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-230-0063 Fax: 619-255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com TerraForm Global, Inc., and SunEdison, Inc., are represented by: Sara B. Brody, Esq. Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq. Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415 772 1279 E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com jbartlett@sidley.com shemmendinger@sidley.com - and - Norman J. Blears, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: 650 565 7103 E-mail: nblears@sidley.com Sidley Austin also represents the individual defendants. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, et al. are represented by: Patrick David Robbins, Esq. Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. Shearman & Sterling LLP 4 Embarcadero Center # 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-616-1210 E-mail: probbins@shearman.com TF FOODS: Recalls Fried Bean Snack Products Due to Peanuts ---------------------------------------------------------- TF Foods of Paramount, CA is recalling its 10.60 ounce packages of "Fried Bean Snack (Na-Pia-Jo)" food treats because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled "Fried Bean Snack (Na-Pia-Jo)" were distributed nationally in retail stores between November of 2015 and beginning of February of 2016. The product comes in a 10.60 ounce, clear plastic bag. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut- containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a change in the company's recipe which added peanuts but not to the labeling of the product. Sale of the product has been suspended until the company is certain that the problem has been corrected. Consumers who have purchased 10.60 ounce packages of "Fried Bean Snack (Na-Pia-Jo)" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact: John Pantaya at TF Foods, Inc., (562)220-2666 Mon-Fri 10am-4pm P.S.T. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Mx9URV TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Trimble Navigation Limited on Feb. 11 announced the notice of hearing and proposed class action settlement below, giving notice of a hearing to consider approval of a settlement and related matters in connection with a class action complaint that challenged the change of control provisions in Trimble's credit agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank. Under the proposed settlement, there would be no payments to individual stockholders, but Trimble and JPMorgan Chase Bank would be required to amend the change of control provisions in the credit agreement. The case is captioned Rachel Thompson, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Trimble Navigation Limited, Steven W. Berglund, John B. Goodrich, Merit E. Janow, Ulf Johansson, Mark S. Peek, Nickolas W. Vande Steeg, Ron Nersesian, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No. 1-15-cv-27798. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Eric L. Zagar (Bar No. 260519) 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (267) 948-2512 ezagar@ktmc.com -- and -- Eli R. Greenstein (Bar No. 217945) One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 400-3000 Fax: (415) 400-3001 egreenstein@ktmc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Thompson SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA RACHEL THOMPSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, STEVEN W. BERGLUND, JOHN B. GOODRICH, MERIT E. JANOW, ULF JOHANSSON, MARK S. PEEK, NICKOLAS W. VANDE STEEG, RON NERSESIAN, AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Defendants. CASE NO.: 1-15-CV-277983 CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF HEARING AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Judge: Hon. Peter H. Kirwan Dept.: 1 (Complex Civil Litigation) Complaint Filed: March 12, 2015 TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT HELD TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED ("TRIMBLE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF NOVEMBER 24, 2014. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ACTION IS A NON-MONETARY SETTLEMENT AND NO INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A RESULT OF THIS SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED. THIS NOTICE IS NOT ANY EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED LAWSUIT. THE STATEMENTS IN THIS NOTICE ARE NOT FINDINGS OF THE COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of Santa Clara (the "Court"), that a proposed Settlement1 has been reached as to claims asserted in a Class Action pending before the Court, captioned Rachel Thompson, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Trimble Navigation Limited, Steven W. Berglund, John B. Goodrich, Merit E. Janow, Ulf Johansson, Mark S. Peek, Nickolas W. Vande Steeg, Ron Nersesian, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No. 1-15-cv-277983 (the "Action"). The terms of the Settlement are summarized in this Notice and fully set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October 6, 2015 (the "Stipulation"). The Settlement will fully resolve the Action upon entry of an Order and Final Judgment by the Court and forever release, relinquish, and discharge the Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties and any and all claims (including Unknown Claims) arising out of, relating to, or in connection with, the defense, settlement or resolution of the Action against the Released Defendant Parties. The Order and Final Judgment shall also fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish and discharge Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel from all claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with, the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement or resolution of the Action or the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims). For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action, the Settlement and the terms discussed in this Notice, the Stipulation may be inspected at the Office of the Clerk, Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113-1090, during regular business hours of each business day. The Settlement will result in changes to the Company's credit agreements, not in payment to individuals. I. BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION On November 24, 2014, Trimble entered into a credit agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank ("JPMorgan") that provided for a five-year, $1.0 billion revolving loan facility (with a $50 million letter of credit sub-facility) maturing on November 24, 2019 (the "Agreement"). Under Section 1.01 of the Agreement, "Change of Control" is defined as, inter alia, "an event or series of events by which . . . during any period of 12 consecutive months, the majority of the board of directors of the Company fails to consist of Continuing Directors." Under Section 1.01 of the Agreement, "Continuing Directors" means: with respect to any Person as of any date of determination, any member of the board of directors of such Person who (a) was a member of such board of directors on the Closing Date, or (b) was nominated for election or elected to such board of directors with the approval of a majority of the Continuing Directors who were members of such board at the time of such nomination or election (other than any person whose initial nomination or election occurred as a result of an actual or threatened solicitation of proxies or consents for the election or removal of one or more members), in each case either by specific vote or by approval of a proxy statement issued by the Company on behalf of its entire board of directors in which such individual is named as a nominee for director. (Emphasis added). Under subsection (k) of Section 8.01 of the Agreement, a "Change of Control" constitutes a "Default", and under Section 8.02 if a "Default" occurs: the Administrative Agent may, and at the request of the Required Lenders shall, terminate or suspend the obligations of the Lenders to make Loans hereunder and the obligation of the Issuing Banks to issue Letters of Credit hereunder, or declare the Obligations to be due and payable, or both, whereupon the Obligations shall become immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand, protest or notice of any kind, all of which the Borrowers expressly waive. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff Rachel Thompson ("Plaintiff") filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of Santa Clara a Class Action Complaint that asserted claims on behalf of herself and a putative class of Trimble stockholders (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleged, inter alia, that (i) defendants Steven W. Berglund, John B. Goodrich, Merit E. Janow, Ulf Johansson, Mark S. Peek, Nickolas W. Vande Steeg, and Ron Nersesian (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") wrongfully agreed to provisions in the Agreement that trigger the lenders' right to accelerate the debt if there is an election of a majority of directors whose initial nomination arose from an actual or threatened proxy contest (the "Dead Hand Proxy Put"); (ii) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care when they did not obtain "extraordinarily valuable economic benefits" in exchange for agreeing to the Dead Hand Proxy Put provision as part of the Agreement; and (iii) JPMorgan aided and abetted said breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the Dead Hand Proxy Put provision. On April 21, 2015, the Court determined the case to be "complex" within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400 and stayed discovery. Commencing in or about May 2015, counsel for the respective parties began arm's length negotiations regarding a possible resolution of the Action. Thereafter, counsel for the parties reached an agreement to resolve the Action on the terms set forth herein. II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND BENEFITS OF THE SETTLEMENT Plaintiff and her counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the Stipulation are fair, reasonable and adequate to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. Based on Plaintiff's direct oversight of the prosecution of this matter, and with the advice of its counsel, Plaintiff has agreed to settle and release all of the claims raised in the Action pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, after considering (i) the substantial benefits provided under the proposed Settlement; and (ii) the uncertain outcome and risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as the Action, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiff and her counsel are also mindful of the inherent problems of proof and possible defenses to the claims asserted in the Action. Based on their evaluation, Plaintiff and her counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is in the best interests of the Class. Plaintiff's Counsel believes that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation confers substantial benefits upon the Class. Plaintiff's Counsel bases this conclusion upon, inter alia, their extensive investigation during the development, prosecution and settlement of the Action, which included, inter alia, inspecting, reviewing and analyzing information regarding the Company, including, but not limited to, the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and researching the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted in the Action and the potential defenses thereto. III. INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY Each Defendant expressly denies any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all claims asserted in the Action, including that they have committed any violations of law, that they have acted improperly in any way, or that they have any liability or owe any damages or relief of any kind to Plaintiff or any other member or the Class. Defendants are entering into the Stipulation solely because they consider it desirable that the Action be settled and released, on the merits and with prejudice, in order to, among other things, (a) eliminate the burden, inconvenience, expense, risk and distraction of further litigation; and (b) terminate all the claims that were or could have been asserted against the Defendants in the Action. IV. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable Peter H. Kirwan on June 10, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1 of the Court, located at 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113- 1090, to: (i) determine whether the provisional class action certification should be made final; (ii) determine whether the Settlement should be finally approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered pursuant to the Stipulation; (iv) consider Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (v) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. The Settlement Hearing may be continued by the Court at the Settlement Hearing or at any adjourned session thereof without further notice. V. THE SETTLEMENT The terms and conditions of the Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation described above. The following is only a summary of its terms. The Settling Parties have conducted arms-length negotiations over an extended period of time and have reached an agreement in good faith to settle the Action. In consideration of the full settlement and the release of the Released Claims against Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties, Defendants agree to the following: (a) Within 30 days of the Settlement becoming Final, Defendants shall eliminate the Dead Hand Proxy Put provision by amending the Agreement's definition of "Continuing Directors" to delete the following language: (other than any person whose initial nomination or election occurred as a result of an actual or threatened solicitation of proxies or consents for the election or removal of one or more members) (b) JPMorgan shall not charge Trimble a fee for amending the Agreement as set forth in paragraph (a) above. Except as explicitly set forth in paragraph (a) above, the Settlement shall not alter or affect the Agreement in any way. VI. RELEASE AND DISCHARGE In connection with the Court's approval of the Settlement and upon the Effective Date, Plaintiff and each member of the Class shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Order and Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged the Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties and any and all claims (including Unknown Claims) arising out of, relating to, or in connection with, the defense, settlement, or resolution of the Action against the Released Defendant Parties. Upon the Effective Date each of the Released Defendant Parties and each member of the Class shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Order and Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel from all claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with, the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Action or the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims). "Released Claims" means any claims, demands, rights, actions, causes of action, liabilities, damages, losses, obligations, judgments, duties, suits, costs, expenses, matters, and issues known or unknown, including Unknown Claims, contingent or absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, liquidated or unliquidated, matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or unapparent, whether state, federal, or foreign, common law, statutory, or regulatory, including, without limitation, claims under the federal securities laws, that have been or could have been asserted in any court, tribunal or proceeding by Plaintiff and/or any Trimble stockholder, either on his, her or its own behalf or on behalf of Trimble, against any Released Defendant Parties that are based upon, arise out of, or relate to the allegations in the Complaint and/or the settlement of the Action, except that Released Claims do not include claims to enforce the Settlement. "Unknown Claims" means any claims which any of the Settling Parties do not know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor at the time of the release, and which, if known by him, her or it, might have affected his, her or its decision (i) to enter into the Stipulation, (ii) to agree to the releases contemplated therein or (iii) not object to the Settlement. With respect to any and all Released Claims, the Settling Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, each of the Settling Parties shall expressly waive, and each member of the Class by operation of the Judgment shall have expressly waived, the provisions, rights, and benefits of California Civil Code section 1542, or any law of the United States or any state of the United States or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code section 1542, which provides: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. The Settling Parties acknowledge, and each member of the Class by operation of the Order and Final Judgment shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that they may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those which they now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but, upon the effective date of the Settlement, the Settling Parties shall expressly settle and release, and each member of the Class shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Order and Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released, any and all Released Claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts. The Settling Parties acknowledge, and each member of the Class shall be deemed by operation of the Order and Final Judgment to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver and the inclusion of "Unknown Claims" in the definition of "Released Claims" was separately bargained for and was a material element of the Settlement of which this release is a part and was relied upon by each and all of the Defendants in entering into the Stipulation. The Court has not made (and will not make) any determination as to the merits of any claims or defenses in the Action. This notice does not imply that any Individual Defendant would be found liable or that relief would be awarded if the Action were not being settled. Nothing herein shall in any way impair or restrict the rights of any Party to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. VII. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S FEES AND EXPENSES Plaintiff's Counsel intends to seek an award of fees and expenses, in the aggregate, of not more than $250,000 (the "Fees and Expenses"). Defendants agree not to oppose an award of fees and expenses, in the aggregate, that does not exceed such amount, which amount will be payable by the Company, its successors in interest, and/or its insurers. Any order or proceeding relating to the Fees and Expenses, or any appeal from any order relating thereto or reversal or modification thereof, shall not operate to terminate or cancel the Stipulation, or affect or delay the finality of the Order and Final Judgment approving the Stipulation and the Settlement as set forth herein. VIII. THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE HEARING Any person who objects to the Settlement, the Order and Final Judgment to be entered in the Action, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or who otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in person or by counsel at the Settlement Hearing and present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. IX. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT The Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of certain events described in the Stipulation. Those events include the occurrence of the Effective Date, which means the first date by which all of the following events and conditions have been met and have occurred: (a) The conditional certification of the Action as a non-opt-out class action on behalf of a Class; (b) The approval by the Court of a release of the Released Defendant Parties and the entry by the Court of the Order and Final Judgment; and (c) The Order and Final Judgment has become Final. X. EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES This notice contains only a summary of the terms of the Settlement. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action, there is additional information concerning the Settlement available in the Stipulation, which may be inspected at the Office of the Clerk, Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113-1090, during regular business hours of each business day. Clerk of the Court Superior Court of California City and County of Santa Clara 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113-1090 Telephone: (408) 882-2100 PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR TRIMBLE REGARDING THIS NOTICE FTRMB 1 Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all capitalized terms contained herein shall have the same meanings and/or definitions as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lainer" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Lainer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09925 -BRO- MRW (C.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls to the Class members' wireless telephones. Uber Technologies Inc. operates a mobile ride hail company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Horace Lee and Imran Sandozi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11756 (N.D. Ill., December 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a transportation company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Jackstadt, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 103 West Vandalia Street, Suite 125 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 - and - Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-0007 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com - and - John Ostojic, Esq. Donald Gallagher, Esq. OSTOJIC & SCUDDER, LLC 332 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 913-0860 Facsimile: (312) 913-0868 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles "Safe Ride Fee" Suit for $28.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Lien, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Uber has agreed to pay $28.5 million to roughly 25 million customers to settle two class-action lawsuits related to the way the company represented its background checks and the fees it charged passengers. As part of the settlement, filed on Feb. 11 in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, the San Francisco company will change the language of its safety-related advertising and stop using the term "Safe Ride Fee." If the settlement is approved by a judge, the class -- which includes anyone who took an Uber ride in the U.S. between Jan. 1, 2013, and Jan. 31, 2016 -- will be notified via email and given the option to be paid by credit card or receive a credit to their rider account. The amount that individuals in the class will receive is not yet known. The company was sued in two separate cases by customers who alleged it misled them by advertising that Uber rides are "safer than a taxi" and that its background checks were "industry leading." The court filings said Uber made these claims in its marketing materials, despite its background check process not including fingerprints or requiring applicants to appear in person. In comparison, taxi regulators use fingerprint technology in their background checks. The district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles filed similar lawsuits against the ride-hailing company in late 2014. Those cases are ongoing. Uber has remained steadfast that its technology improves safety before, during and after rides by enabling drivers and passengers to know who they're riding with. Rides booked through the Uber app are also tracked via GPS, and all passengers receive a digital record of the trip. "However no means of transportation can ever be 100 percent safe," the company said in a blog post Feb. 11. "We are glad to put these cases behind us and we will continue to invest in new technology and great customer services so that we can help improve safety in the cities we serve." Separately, Uber also announced on Feb. 11 a partnership with American Airlines at 11 U.S. airports. The partnership will offer passengers of both services rider and mileage promotions. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 25 Drivers' Class Actions -------------------------------------------------- Daniel Kitzes, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that since it was launched back in 2009, Uber Technologies, Inc. has been in the national spotlight for developing and implementing its revolutionary "ridesharing" mobile application. Uber continues to appear in headlines for a multitude of reasons, many of which are desirable, and at least one of which is not: getting sued by its workforce. Despite being around for less than a decade, a Bloomberg Law Docket search reveals Uber is a defendant in more than 200 ongoing lawsuits, about 100 of which are being heard in various California state and federal courts. Approximately 25 of the 200 lawsuits involve class action claims. The theme behind the Uber actions asks the same essential question: are Uber drivers independent contractors or employees? In June 2015, the California Labor Commissioner determined that Uber drivers were indeed employees -- who were entitled to certain state law protections such as the payment of overtime -- because Uber is "involved in every aspect of the operation." This news led to a flood of claims and litigation across various states, including an Order in September 2015 from Judge Chen of the Northern District for the District of California granting in part and denying in part a group of Uber drivers' Motion for Class Certification. Uber class-actions continued to dominate headlines as Judge Chen determined in the separate matter of Yucesoy v. Uber Tehnologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-00262-EMC that a group of Massachusetts drivers may proceed with claims under Massachusetts law relating to tips and tortuous interference with advantageous relations. Meanwhile, Judge Chen's docket might be growing after a separate group of plaintiffs sought class certification. So, why are there so many cases and why don't they just get consolidated? The simple answer is that, the laws in each jurisdiction are just too different. For example, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation explained in its February 3, 2016 Order Denying Transfer that "[a]lthough these actions share certain factual issues regarding Uber . . .the standards for determining whether independent contractors are employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which require consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged employer's relationship with [the] plaintiffs." This is important for employers to take note of. Generally, when a court approves class certification, class members are given the opportunity to "opt out" and pursue claims individually, or else they remain part of the class and waive all rights to pursue the same claims otherwise. But because of the variations in employment laws from state-to-state, class actions in California may have little to no impact on class actions in New York or Massachusetts or anywhere else. This is a double-edged sword for Uber, because it gives them the opportunity to defeat these claims in some jurisdictions where they might lose in others, but it also exposes the ridesharing giant to multiple punitive damages awards. And when you are talking about 160,000 drivers in just one action in one state, those numbers will add up quickly. Investigating workers misclassified as independent contractors has become an important agenda item for the Department of Labor (DOL). The DOL issued guidance only six months ago explaining "most workers are employees under the [FLSA's] broad definitions." The end result of the Uber saga may shape the future of employer- employee relationships, and signal the boom or bust of the "on- demand economy." UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Labor Suits Pile Up ----------------------------------------------- Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that back in September 2015, a federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit against Uber--if the plaintiffs are successful, former and current California drivers would be declared as employees rather than contractors. If Uber loses, it would represent a sea change for the company and for the entire so-called "sharing economy." Uber's newfound employees would be entitled to a number of benefits under federal law. Those perks would include, among others, unemployment benefits, workers' compensation, the right to unionize, and most importantly, the right to seek reimbursement for mileage and tips. Those added expenses would certainly factor into Uber's estimated valuation of $63 billion. Since the case, O'Connor v. Uber, was certified, the startup has been hit with an additional 13 federal proposed class-action lawsuits nationwide -- most of which have been filed by one New York-based firm. One case in Philadelphia was filed as recently as this month. These cases appear to be interested in riding the coattails of one successful suit, which could mean big bucks for attorneys and expanded benefits for Uber drivers. "I think our general strategy is to mimic what's going on in California," Paul Napoli told Ars. "We think that there should be a uniform approach throughout the country that applies federal law to not just California." Mr. Napoli has previously been best-known for being one of the top attorneys in the September 11 first responders case. His wife, Marie Napoli, is the one of the signing attorneys on many of the civil complaints. "I think we are filed in about 11 states in total and we'll continue to expand on it," Paul Napoli added. "I think we want to [start] with these states. O'Connor has certainly been instrumental, and a lot of his rulings are going to help lead the way in other jurisdictions." Mr. Napoli recently tried to get their cases lumped together with O'Connor in what's known as a "multidistrict litigation," but that move was denied. Neither Uber's attorneys nor the O'Connor attorneys wanted that grouping to go forward. Paul Napoli put a positive spin on that denial: "While we favor consolidation, sometimes it's better to have 10 or 11 opportunities as opposed to one in front of a single judge--we think it's actually going to be to our benefit." Uber did not respond to Ars' request for comment. From coast to coast The 13 cases that Ars located have been filed in various states, including New York, Ohio, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. One of the cases brought by the Napoli firm involves a Philadelphia UberX driver, Joseph DiNofa. According to the complaint in DiNofa v. Uber, the plaintiff only made $80 per week after deducting gas, tolls, lease payments, and car repairs. DiNofa and his attorneys allege: Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides, and drivers are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber. In addition, all drivers for Uber must maintain an average customer star evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars. Instructions on how to improve one's star rating are given to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a driver fails to maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber will deactivate his or her ability to use the application to pick up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver "at will," a hallmark of an employee-employer relationship. As a result of its misclassification, Uber failed to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages, lawful meal and rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary employment related expenses. Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved employees' hours worked and wages paid. Uber also retained all gratuities owed to aggrieved employees despite representing to its customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the total cost of the car service. Uber specifically advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost of the fare. Similarly, Illinois plaintiff Imran Sandozi claims that he only made $100-$200 per week. In yet another Napoli-brought case filed in Ohio, Bruster v. Uber, the UberX driver claims that he only made $5 per hour after expenses, or "significantly less than the state minimum wage." Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of Illinois, told Ars that this scattershot approach suggests that these cases are trying to use state labor law as a way to "lead a very large class." "The Bruster case is a case in point," he e-mailed. "Allegations such as tortious interference with business, breach of contract, promissory estoppel (implied contract; oral promises seeking detrimental reliance), and the other counts all have a specific meaning in Ohio. Yes, most other states have similar laws, but this complaint says to me that the filing attorney wants to corral all the Ohio cases first--and perhaps expand beyond the class to drivers outside of Ohio, once his class receives certification." Mr. Napoli says that these suits are a means to obtain justice for drivers. "It's a new age -- 100 years ago you had labor unions for factories and manufacturing," he said. "Now it's a new wave because of the technology that's developed and ensuring that the labor laws are complied with," he continued. "The laws need to keep pace with the technology. And I think that that's what these cases are highlighting. Just because these people are communicating with iPhones and Androids doesn't change the responsibility of the employers of these workers themselves." In the meantime, O'Connor v. Uber's jury trial date has been set for June 20, 2016 in federal court in San Francisco. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: MDL Panel Refuses to Coordinate Drivers' Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that Uber has dodged a legal move that would have coordinated more than a dozen lawsuits brought by its drivers over their employment status. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided against moving the cases into MDL and appeared persuaded by Uber's arguments that classifications of independent contractors varied too much state-to-state to make coordination feasible. As of the panel's decision, 17 lawsuits had been filed against Uber in 13 states. Most of the suits allege that Uber Technologies Inc. has misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees who are entitled to unpaid wages, tips and reimbursement for gas and other expenses. Uber, based in San Francisco, offers a transportation service through a mobile application that connects drivers with customers. "Although these actions share certain factual issues regarding Uber's classification of drivers as independent contractors and its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining whether independent contractors are employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which require consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged employer's relationship with plaintiffs," MDL Panel Chairwoman Sarah Vance wrote. Uber, represented by Andrew Spurchise, a shareholder in the New York office of San Francisco's Littler Mendelson, made similar arguments in a Dec. 29 motion opposing MDL. An Uber spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. The panel's decision also found that the case brought in San Francisco by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston, which is set to go to trial on June 20, was too far along in discovery to be coordinated. Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who moved to coordinate the litigation into an MDL, said in an email: "We respect the panel's decision and look forward to taking Uber on in every court across the country. They made their bed and now must live with it. Uber will be hard pressed to argue we should not depose their witnesses in each state now." Mr. Shkolnik represents a proposed class of Uber drivers from 2011 to the present. Ogunmokun v. Uber Technologies, 15-cv-06143, is before Eastern District Judge Nicholas Garaufis. In an amended complaint filed on Feb. 3, the plaintiffs say that Uber exercises "significant control" over its "independent transportation providers." The lawsuit states claims of tortious interference with prospective business relations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, unfair competition, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state Labor Law and of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Appeal over Case Dismissal Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the order dismissing shareholder class action lawsuits is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation. VICAL INC: 9th Circuit Dismissed Class Action Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Vical Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016, that the Ninth Circuit has granted the joint motion and dismissed the appeal in a securities class action. In late October and early November 2013, following Vical's announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin(R) and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Vical and certain of its current and former officers ("Defendants"). On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed ("Consolidation Order"). On May 12, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint alleging that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding Vical's business prospects and the prospects for Allovectin(R), thereby artificially inflating the price of Vical's common stock. On June 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and terminated as moot defendants' motion to strike, or Order. The lead plaintiff was granted leave to amend his first amended complaint on or before March 25, 2015. The lead plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint and instead stipulated to an entry of judgment. On April 28, 2015, the Court entered final judgment dismissing the action, or Judgment. On May 28, 2015, the lead plaintiff appealed the Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That same day, another group of the Company's stockholders, that had previously moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, or the Vical Investor Group, also appealed the Judgment, as well as the Consolidation Order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 3, 2015, the Vical Investor Group voluntarily dismissed its appeal. On October 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed an opening brief in support of his appeal. Defendants' filed an answering brief on December 9, 2015. On January 27, 2016, lead plaintiff- appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal with prejudice, which was joined by Defendants. On February 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted the joint motion and dismissed the appeal. VOSGES LTD: Recalls Bacon Chocolate Products Due to Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------------- Vosges, LTD, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is recalling approximately 135 pounds of Uncured Bacon Ganache chocolate products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains coconut, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The Uncured Bacon Ganache chocolate products were packaged on Jan. 15, 2016 to Jan. 22, 2016 and are stamped with a BEST BY code 03 SEP 2016. The following product is subject to recall: --- 135-lb. (720 bars) individual paper carton containing 3oz. flow wrapped bars of "Trader Joe's Uncured Bacon Ganache Bar" (SKU 55001). The product subject to recall bears establishment number "EST. 34647" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The problem was discovered after the establishment received a consumer complaint. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. VOYAGER PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Ballard" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beckie Lynn Ballard, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Voyager Pipeline Construction, LLC, a/k/a Voyager Energy Services, LLC, and Voyager Construction, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01157 (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are in the business of providing the oil and gas industry with primary production services, including but not limited to pipeline construction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com WILSHIRE CREDIT: Suit Seeks Damages for Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------- James Bowles, Barbra Bowles, and all others similarly-situated v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Bank of America, N.A, International Business Machines Corporation, Seterus, Inc. fka IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, QBE First Insurance Agency Inc., and QBE Insurance Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00221 (D.N.J., January 15, 2016), seeks damages against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The Plaintiffs alleged that the standard form mortgage agreements for loans serviced by Wilshire include a provision requiring the borrower to maintain hazard insurance coverage on the property securing the loan. In the event that the hazard insurance lapses, the standard form mortgage agreements permitted Wilshire to obtain force-placed coverage to protect the lender's interest in the loan and to charge the cost of the insurance to the borrower rather than declare the borrower in default. What was unknown to borrowers, and not disclosed in the standard form mortgage agreements, is that Wilshire had exclusive arrangements with ZC Sterling and its affiliates, including QBE Holdings and defendant QBE FIRST, to manipulate the force-placed insurance market and artificially inflate charges to Plaintiffs and the class. The charges are inflated to provide Wilshire with kickbacks, disguised as "commissions," and to provide other financial benefits which are not attributable to the cost of insuring the individual property. Defendant Wilshire is a Nevada corporation with its headquarters located at 14523 S.W. Millikan Way, Suite 200, Beaverton, Oregon. Wilshire was established in 1987 as a residential mortgage loan servicing company focusing on the sub-prime market. Defendant BANA is a Delaware corporation and national banking association insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. BANA has its principal place of business at 100 North Tryon Street, in Charlotte, North Carolina. BANA is a direct wholly- owned subsidiary of BAC. Defendant BACHL a former subsidiary of BAC, was a Texas limited partnership that serviced mortgage loans, including residential mortgage loans originated or owned by BANA. IBM announced that it had finalized its acquisition of the core operating assets of Wilshire from BAC on March 1, 2010. Defendant IBM is a multinational technology and consulting corporation. IBM is incorporated in the State of New York and maintains its corporate headquarters at 1 New Orchard Road in Armonk, New York. Defendant Seterus is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 14523 S.W. Millikan Way, Suite 200, Beaverton, Oregon 97005- 2352. Seterus services residential mortgage loans in New Jersey and throughout the United States. Defendant ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. is a California corporation formerly located at 210 Interstate North Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia. In May 2010, ZC Sterling changed its name to Sterling National Insurance Agency, Inc., which then changed its name to QBE FIRST in May 2011. Defendant QBE FIRST is a California corporation with its headquarters located at 9800 Muirlands Boulevard, Irvine, California 92618. QBE FIRST is a subsidiary of QBE Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and insurance holding company. QBE FIRST acts as the program manager for QBE's force-placed insurance programs and also provides outsourced services to mortgage servicers. Defendant QBE is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 88 Pine Street, New York, New York 10005. QBE writes force-placed insurance for hazard coverage in the State of New Jersey and throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C Montclair, NJ 07042 Tel: (973) 259-6990 Fax: (866) 848-1368 E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 847-8315 Fax: (646) 520-3236 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com YAHOO INC: Faces Suit Over Ranking System-Related Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that Yahoo Inc., the Sunnyvale, California-based tech giant, got slapped with a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, but not the kind one might typically expect, especially in Silicon Valley. Gregory Anderson, a former editorial director of several Yahoo news verticals, claims he lost his job because of discrimination against men in the company's media department. The allegation of reverse discrimination in male-dominated Silicon Valley has captured public attention. But what's just as noteworthy is the role a controversial employee performance rating system, known as "stack ranking" or "forced ranking," played in Mr. Anderson's allegations. These systems may feed into existing biases or create the appearance of biases in employment practices. According to Anderson's complaint, Yahoo started using its "Quarterly Performance Review" system to rate employees in 2012 when Marissa Mayer stepped in as CEO. The complaint says that the system, which closely resembles stack ranking, involves supervisors assigning employees ratings based on their performance and ranking them along a bell curve with five sections -- from "greatly exceeds" down to "misses" -- on a quarterly basis. Upper-level management would review these rankings, often without consulting with employees. Those who wound up at the bottom of the bell curve, such as Anderson, were terminated, sometimes in large numbers. Mr. Anderson claims that Yahoo abused the QPR system, with management adjusting ranking numbers in an opaque manner designed to get rid of male employees, while keeping and promoting females. He cites an instance where a man and woman were awarded the same ranking score but the man was dismissed and not allowed to appeal his score, as well as a disproportionate surge in the number of female high-level employees in his department. Yahoo's system has come under criticism before by complaints from company insiders who feel they have to give capable employees a low rating (and potentially the boot) in order to fit the bell curve. Putting aside what the system does to workplace morale, does it invite legal liability for companies? "There's nothing inherently wrong with the model," says David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- chairman at Sanford Heisler Kimpel, a firm that represents individual plaintiffs in employment law cases. "But if it turns out that using the model wound up having disparate impact on certain protected groups, then you have a problem." Mr. Sanford explains that while ranking employees may be perfectly fine, if these rankings are bumping people in a certain protected category into a lower group, that could be grounds for a suit such as Mr. Anderson's. And the more subjective the ranking system, the more likely it is that a plaintiff could find reasons to sue. Tamara Devitt, a partner at Haynes & Boone who represents employers, says the problem isn't stack rankings, but how they are applied. "With any performance evaluation system, it's really important for human resources personnel to be involved in ensuring that the system is designed for consistency, that it's designed to provide as much objective feedback as possible to the employees that are being reviewed, and that there are checks in the process to help employers avoid claims of discrimination." Discrimination suits have arisen from ranking systems before. A 2015 suit against Microsoft Corp. alleged that its performance ratings discriminated against women. The named plaintiff claimed that despite exceeding performance expectations and getting high number rankings from her manager, the company lowered her numbers so it could comply with ranking caps. In years past, similar suits have been filed against such companies as Ford Motor Co. and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. over alleged discriminatory effects of their rankings systems. As for Mr. Anderson, his suit may have to get around a couple of issues. Gary Hanna, a plaintiffs labor and employment attorney, says that reverse discrimination claims can be more difficult to litigate than more traditional discrimination claims. "I think it's going to be harder," he says. "There is no question that juries and judges are going to be more skeptical of it." Mr. Hanna notes another wrinkle in the Yahoo case. Plaintiffs in discrimination litigation often use performance reviews to prove that they were performing well enough so that their termination must have been caused by another factor such as bias. But when the complaints are in part about the performance review system itself, a wrench is thrown into this argument. "In this case, it's like the evaluations work the opposite way," says Mr. Hanna. "It's a reversal of the normal system, which is interesting." * Class Actions Over Website Accessibility on the Rise ------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that there's been a wave of lawsuits alleging popular websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, and more could be on the way. Litigation over website accessibility isn't new. The National Federation of the Blind brought an important test case against Target Corp. in 2008, which ended in a $6 million settlement. What's changed is the sheer volume of class action litigation. In a recent client alert, attorneys at Vedder Price noted a "flurry" of these lawsuits. "The plaintiffs' bar is now flirting with a new type of class action lawsuit which poses a threat to any employer that operates a website," they wrote. A legally blind man filed one such lawsuit against the National Basketball Association in November, alleging the NBA's website is a "facility" that must be readily accessible to the visually impaired under the ADA. A blind woman filed a similar suit against Red Roof Inn Inc. in October. And eHarmony Inc., a dating website, got hit with a similar putative class action in August. Making matters worse for companies, the U.S. Department of Justice is also wielding the ADA against websites and mobile apps. In 2014, the DOJ announced settlements with H&R Block Inc. and Peapod Inc., both of which were accused of failing to accommodate individuals who are blind or have low vision, who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have physical disabilities affecting manual dexterity. Disability rights advocates argue that websites should use so- called screen reader technology. Also, sites should be able to be fully navigated through a keyboard interface instead of only by a mouse, among other recommendations. Despite bringing these enforcement actions, the DOJ has postponed until 2018 plans to issue guidance on website accessibility. For guidance, companies can turn to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, a set of guidelines issued by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. Gonzalo Mon -- gmon@kelleydrye.com -- a partner with Kelley Drye & Warren, predicts that the guidance the DOJ offers in 2018 will not differ much from what the DOJ sought in its settlements with Peapod and H&R Block. He says that what the DOJ demands is "fairly similar" to what's in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. The one "grey area," Mr. Mon says, that the DOJ is likely to define in 2018 is which websites are covered by the ADA. Accessibility class actions have seen mixed results in court, as companies try to gauge if they fall under the umbrella of a "place of public accommodation," as outlined by the ADA. There is no formal guidance that says all websites fit into this category. In April 2015, an appeals court ruled that the ADA doesn't apply to Netflix Inc.'s video-streaming service because it's not connected to any "actual physical place." The digital library Scribd Inc., on the other hand, lost a motion to dismiss an ADA class action on these grounds. In refusing to dismiss the case, a federal judge in Vermont wrote that "now that the Internet plays such a critical role in the personal and professional lives of Americans, excluding disabled persons from access to covered entities that use it as their principal means of reaching the public would defeat the purpose of this important civil rights legislation." Mr. Mon says that if and when the DOJ issues guidelines on website accessibility, plaintiffs will still likely file class actions against companies, especially if the guidance is as detailed as he expects it will be. "Assuming there are still companies left to pursue," Mr. Mon says, "the guidelines aren't going to stop plaintiffs. It would likely bolster the arguments of these plaintiffs firms." The only suits that could potentially go away, he says, are the ones where the DOJ decides that companies without a brick-and- mortar outfit are not subject to the website accessibility requirements. * Partial Class Action Settlements Not Covered Under PSLRA ---------------------------------------------------------- Israel David and Samuel P. Groner, writing for New York Law Journal, report that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) provides that a "covered person" who settles a private action is discharged, through the issuance of an appropriate bar order, from all potential claims for contribution that might be brought in the future by other persons (such as by non-settling defendants). Non-settling defendants, in turn, receive the benefit of the PSLRA's favorable judgment reduction provisions. However, the PSLRA appears to be silent concerning what settlement discharge and judgment reduction provisions should apply in the event of partial settlements by defendants who are not "covered persons." Although the PSLRA specifies that all defendants "in any private action arising under [the Exchange Act]" are covered persons, that is not the case with regard to defendants in actions arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act). In the latter case, the only defendants who are expressly "covered persons" are "outside director[s] of the issuer of the securities that are the subject of the action." What about a settlement in a Section 11 case with a defendant who is not an expressly "covered person," such as a settlement with some or all of the issuer's underwriters or accountants? Is the settling defendant entitled to a bar order preventing future contribution claims and, if so, what judgment reduction credit are the non-settling defendants entitled to? Are they entitled to a judgment reduction similar to the one provided in Exchange Act cases? Because of the multiplicity of defendants in many recent securities class actions and the fact that factors counseling in favor of an earlier settlement by an issuer or director may not always counsel in favor of settlement by an underwriter or accountant (and vice versa), partial settlements -- in which the claims against some defendants are settled while the claims against other defendants persist -- are becoming increasingly common. The answers to the questions above may play a significant role in guiding parties to structure settlements capable of withstanding objections from non-settling defendants, although there is sparse case law exploring how those questions should be answered. New York Law Journal briefly explores the PSLRA's settlement discharge and judgment reduction provisions and how they work in the context of settlements by covered persons, and then discuss the manner in which courts have taken those provisions into account in the context of settlements by defendants who are not covered persons. Rationales for the Credit The PSLRA's settlement discharge provisions encourage partial settlements by mandating that with the settlement comes peace for the settling defendants from potential contribution claims. The PSLRA's judgment reduction provisions, in turn, compensate the non-settling defendants for their inability to bring contribution claims against the settling defendants by providing the non- settling defendants with the judgment reduction credit described below. By way of context, before the PSLRA was enacted, a number of courts, faced with a situation where some defendants settled with the plaintiff in a securities class action, determined that such a judgment should be reduced by the amount actually paid by the settling defendants (known as "pro tanto"). They explained that the pro tanto method was consistent with the "one satisfaction rule," a tort concept pursuant to which a non-settling defendant is entitled to credit any settlement amount already paid by his co-defendant against any judgment obtained against him, "as long as both the settlement and judgment are derived from the same loss," to prevent the plaintiff from receiving a double recovery. In contrast, other courts determined that any future judgment against the non-settling defendants should, as a matter of federal common law, be reduced by an amount corresponding to the percentage of responsibility of the settling defendant. The PSLRA combines these two approaches and provides the non-settling defendant with a judgment reduction credit in an amount equal to the greater of the amount actually paid by the settling defendant and the amount representing the percentage of responsibility of the settling defendant. The Credit in Practice To illustrate how these judgment reduction provisions work, consider the following hypothetical. Suppose the plaintiff settles before trial with Defendant A, a "covered person" under the PSLRA, for $10 million. Defendant B takes the case to trial, and the jury finds that the plaintiff is entitled to $60 million in damages. The jury assigns 10 percent of the fault to Defendant A and 90 percent of the fault to Defendant B. Pursuant to the judgment reduction provisions of the PSLRA, the $60 million verdict is reduced by the greater of the amount corresponding to Defendant A's percentage of responsibility (10 percent of $60 million, or $6 million) or the amount paid to the plaintiff by Defendant A ($10 million). Insofar as the $10 million settlement amount that Defendant A paid to the plaintiff is greater than the $6 million amount corresponding to Defendant A's percentage of responsibility, the $60 million verdict would be reduced by $10 million, not $6 million, and Defendant B's liability would be $50 million. Alternatively, had the jury determined that Defendant A was 50 percent at fault and Defendant B was 50 percent at fault, then the amount corresponding to Defendant A's percentage of responsibility (50 percent of $60 million, or $30 million) would have been greater than the amount paid to the plaintiff by Defendant A ($10 million). In that scenario, the $60 million verdict would have been reduced by $30 million and Defendant B's liability would be $30 million. Other Entities Relatively few published decisions have analyzed the PSLRA's settlement discharge and judgment reduction provisions in the 20 years since the PSLRA was enacted, and even fewer have analyzed what provisions should be applied in cases involving settlements by defendants who are not covered persons. Those decisions suggest that courts should permit bar orders as long as the settlement between the plaintiff and the settling defendant specifically mandates that any later judgment against the non- settling defendants will be reduced pursuant to the PSLRA's judgment reduction formula. That is presumably because the rationales behind the PSLRA's judgment reduction provisions apply equally whether or not the settling defendants are covered persons. In Rieckborn v. Velti, 2015 WL 468329 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2015), the court revised a proposed judgment that had been agreed upon by the settling parties to ensure that any subsequent judgment against the non-settling defendants would be reduced pursuant to the PSLRA formula, independent of whether the settling defendants were covered persons. The plaintiff class consisted of investors in Velti, which allegedly had "misrepresented its 'day sales outstanding' -- a measure of the number of days it takes to collect a receivable -- as significantly lower than it was." The plaintiff class brought claims pursuant to both the Exchange Act and the Securities Act against Velti, several of its officers and directors, its accounting firm, and its underwriters. The plaintiff initially reached a settlement with Velti and a number of its officers and directors, but not with the accounting firm or the underwriters. The partial settlement included a bar order which, among other things, discharged any contribution claims by non-settling defendants against Velti and the Velti director and officer defendants. The partial settlement also included a judgment reduction provision, which provided that, as to the Exchange Act claims, "in the event Plaintiffs . . . shall obtain a verdict or judgment against any of the Nonsettling Defendant . . ., the verdict or judgment shall be reduced by the greater of (i) an amount that corresponds to the percentage of responsibility of the Released Persons, or (ii) the amount paid on behalf of the Released Persons in this Partial Settlement," for example, language virtually identical to the PSLRA's language. However, Securities Act claims were to be treated differently. The judgment reduction provision governing Securities Act claims stated that persons subject to the bar order "shall be entitled to appropriate judgment reduction in accordance with applicable statutory or common law rule to the extent permitted under the Securities Act for the claims alleged herein." The accounting firm and the underwriters objected. Among their objections was that the same judgment reduction methodology should apply to both the Exchange Act and Securities Act claims, including Securities Act claims against individuals who were not "covered persons." The court agreed and explained that "the PSLRA did not by implication overrule all existing federal common law regarding the 1933 and 1934 Acts" and that, as a matter of federal common law, to be fair to the non-settling parties a partial settlement of a securities class action that contains a bar order extinguishing potential contribution claims must provide for judgment reduction in the manner specified in the PSLRA. The court went on to explain that pre-PSLRA cases had persuasively demonstrated the problems with the pro tanto approach to judgment reduction -- such as that it "encourages collusion" -- thereby counseling in favor of some type of proportionate fault rule. The court further explained that "when the proportionate fault approach is combined with the 'one satisfaction rule' -- i.e., the basic principle that a plaintiff is only entitled to one satisfaction for any given injury -- the result is the [PSLRA] formula." * Securities Class Action Filings in Canada Plummet in 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------- Securities class action case filings in 2015 plummeted to the lowest levels seen since 2008, according to Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2015 Update, published by NERA Economic Consulting. Only four cases were filed during 2015, compared to the 13 cases filed in 2014, and 11 in 2013. Resolutions of Canadian securities class actions in 2015 far outpaced new filings, with seven Canadian securities class actions being settled or tentatively settled, and a record-high six cases dismissed. Defendants in the seven cases settled in 2015 agreed to pay a total of approximately $107 million -- an average of $15.3 million, with a median of $11 million. These figures compare to the average settlement of $71.9 million (which is heavily influenced by a small number of very large settlements) and $11.4 median settlement from the period 1997 to 2015. "2015 was a surprising year for filing and resolution trends for Canadian securities class actions," said NERA Vice President Bradley A. Heys. "There are several factors that may have contributed to the notable decline in the pace of new filings in 2015. Foremost among these may be the impact of several recent court decisions regarding the evidentiary threshold for the leave requirement under the secondary market civil liability provisions of the provincial securities acts. Other contributing factors may include greater expected litigation costs for class counsel, increased opportunity costs for already busy class counsel firms, and the interplay of these factors with the statutory damage limits." Additional Key Trends There are 52 unresolved Canadian securities class actions as of December 31, 2015, representing more than $55 billion in total claims. Each of the four new filings in 2015 involves claims under the secondary market civil liability provisions of the provincial securities acts ("Statutory Secondary Market cases"), compared to 11 such filings in 2014 and 10 in 2013. Over the last six years (2010-2015), a total of 46 class actions have been filed in Canada against TSX-listed companies. There have now been a total of 68 Statutory Secondary Market cases filed since these new provisions came into force in Ontario at the end of 2005. In 2015, three of the four new securities class action cases were filed in Ontario. Historically, approximately 78% of new cases involved a filing in Ontario and 25% in Quebec. Two of the four new cases filed in 2015 also involve parallel class actions filed in the US. Of the 68 Statutory Secondary Market cases filed to date, five (7.4%) have been dismissed as of the end of 2015. Class Action Trends Series NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for more than 20 years. In addition to this Canada Trends report, the firm produces annual US and UK Trends studies. This year-end study was authored by NERA Economic Consulting Vice President Bradley A. Heys and Affiliated Consultant Mark L. Berenblut. Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2015 Update may be downloaded from http://is.gd/81CvRm About NERA NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges. For over half a century, NERA's economists have been creating strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading law firms and corporations. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves clients from more than 25 offices across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. ********* 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 * * *