/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 74 Headlines ACT II JEWELRY: Must Defend Suit Over Lifetime Guarantee ADT CORPORATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Apollo Global Merger AMERICAN GRILL: Violated FLSA, "Rivers" Suit Claims AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends 3 Class Suits in New Jersey AMN HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Travelling Nurses OT AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Appeal in Shareholder Lawsuit Pending BHFC OPERATING: Violated IWC Wage Order, "Villarin" Suit Claims BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: Faces "Ebbe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CALUMET SPECIALTY: FLSA Case Settlement Has Final Approval CCL INDUSTRIES: Violated Exchange Act, "Litwin" Suit Claims CHARLESTON COUNTY: "Peiffer" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Matthew" Securities Class Action CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Natural Gas-Price Fixing CHILD WORKS: Recalls Plastic Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard CINDERELLA SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Martinez" Suit Claims CROCS INC: Settlement of Employee Suits Wins Final Approval DECA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Golf GPS Bands Due to Burn Hazard DHILLON FOODS: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime DI PIETRO TODD: Faces "Valdivia" Suit in Calif. Super. Court ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Action in Early Stage ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry & Myers Class Action ENERGY TRANSFER: Dropped From Delaware State Court Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Dismissal of "Bumgarner" Action Sought ENERGY TRANSFER: Wants Birmingham Retirement Fund Action Tossed ENVESTNET INC: Plaintiffs Drop Merger Class Action EXCELL ELECTRIC: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FELTEX CARPET: 2004 Prospectus Omitted Key Info, Says Class Suit FOURSQUARE LABS: Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Tabor" Suit Says GBG ACCESSORIES: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Risk GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection GLOBUS MEDICAL: To Defend Against "Silverstein" Litigation GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST: Updates on Merger Class Actions GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HEALTH CARE: Faces "Shank" Suit Over Harvoni Treatment Coverage HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Iowa SC Affirms Denial of Dismissal Bid HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Fee Recovery Case Fully Briefed HERTZ GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending HILTON WORLDWIDE: "Austin" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Employees Medical Coverage HOUSTON GARDEN CENTERS: Violated FLSA, "Romero" Suit Claims IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Bat Cape Costumes INOAC CORPORATION: Sued in Mich. Over Interior Trim Price-Fixing INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Defending Customer Suit in Connecticut INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dispositive Motions Due Sept. 16 INTERNATIONAL PERFORMING: Faces "Cosio" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JIMMY JAZZ: "Pemberton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KAYABA INDUSTRY: Sued in Mich. Over Shock Absorber Price-Fixing KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Ruling Expected in 3 to 6 Months KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Abrasion Claims-Related Cases Ongoing LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action M. ARTHUR GENSLER: Breached CLC & Wage Order, "Marasso" Claims MDL 2627: Discovery Ongoing in Flooring Products Liability Case MIMEDX GROUP: Final Settlement Hearing Held on April 5 MITEL NETWORKS: Still Defends Suits Over Mavenir Acquisition MORPHO DETECTION: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement MURRAY OCULAR: "Tur" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: "Cole" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NATERA INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports NCJB RESTAURANT: Doesn't Properly Pay Service Staffs, Suit Says NEUSTAR INC: Virginia Court Dismissed Securities Lawsuit NIPOAMERICAN INC: Recalls Mattresses Due to Noncompliance NISHIKAWA RUBBER: Sued in Mich. Over Body Sealing Price-Fixing NORTEK INC: Settled Florida Action; Tennessee Action Pending NTT TRUCKING: Faces Suit in Del. Over Duty of Care Breach OUTERNATIONAL BRANDS: Faces "Chen" Class Suit in E.D. New York PALMS SOUTH: Faces "Jean" Suit Over Age and Racial Discrimination PARMALAT CANADA: Recalls Chocolate Skimmed Milk Products PELICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Rechargeable LED Flashlights PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Extended Brilliance Workspace NM PHYSICIANS GROUP: "Valentine" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Cooked Chicken Nuggets Due to Plastic POTAMOULA INC: "Lemus" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & PMWA PREVOST: Recalls Multiple Vehicles Due to Fire Risk PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Still Defends "Hsu" Case REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo" REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo" RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Integra 3 Micromanipulators RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Chocolate Iced Eclairs ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Estradiol Products ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Protein (Latex) High Sensitive Assay SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Hickey" Suit Over PFOA-contaminated Water SETRA: Recalls S417 2004, 2006 Models Due to Crash Risk SIEMENS MEDICAL: Recalls E. Cam and Symbia E Systems SLATER & GORDON: Maurice Blackburn Extends Claim Period SSN HOTEL: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yazer" Suit Claims STANCE HEALTHCARE: Recalls Bassinet Carts Due to Injury Risk STONER BOAT: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konyo" Action Says STORTZ TOYS: Recalls 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in Ga. Over Contract Breach SUSHI STUDIO: Faces "Yang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Suit Ongoing in Texas State Court TARGA RESOURCES: 2 Unitholders Sue in S.D. Tex. Over Merger TARGA RESOURCES: Settlement of ATLS Merger Suit Has Final Okay THOR MOTOR: Recalls Hurricane and Windsport 2014 Models TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag TOYS R US: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Damages for Injuries Under TCCWNN TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Updates Pistachio Products Recall UNITED PET: Recalls Top FinTM Power Filters UKROP'S HOMESTYLE: Recalls Turkey, Pork, and Beef Products UTOPIA HOME: Faces "Manigault" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VIVO BRAND: Recalls Sexual Enhancement Products Due to Sildenafil VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Violated Franchise Law, Napleton Suit Claims WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Royalty Payments ********* ACT II JEWELRY: Must Defend Suit Over Lifetime Guarantee -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Lia Sophia's motion to dismiss the case captioned, CYNTHIA WEST, et al. Plaintiffs, v. ACT II JEWELRY, LLC d/b/a LIA SOPHIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-C-5569 (N.D. Ill.). The Court granted the motion by Defendants Kiam Equities Corporation, Victor K. Kiam, III, and Elena Kiam to dismiss them from the suit. Plaintiffs purchased pieces of jewelry from Lia Sophia for personal use. Plaintiffs contend that although Lia Sophia continues to operate its business in an on-line e-commerce operation, Lia Sophia refuses to honor the Lifetime Guarantee. Plaintiffs also contend that Lia Sophia induced its Sales Advisors to continue to sell and purchase additional products and to recruit other Sales Advisors during 2014, when Lia Sophia allegedly knew that it was not going to honor the Lifetime Guarantee. Plaintiffs include in their complaint breach of contract claims brought by Hollander against Lia Sophia and KEC (Count I), claims brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) brought by Hollander (Count II), state law common law fraud claims brought by Hollander (Count III), unjust enrichment claims brought by Hollander (Count IV), ICFA claims brought by West (Count V), state law common law fraud claims brought by West (Count VI), and unjust enrichment claims brought by West (Count VII). Lia Sophia contends that West signed a Sales Advisor Agreement that contained a waiver, which specified that West agreed not to serve as a class representative in litigation brought against Lia Sophia. Kiam Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to suggest that they should be held liable for the alleged misconduct by Lia Sophia. In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/zGcfLgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Der-Yeghiayan concluded that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts to suggest that the Kiam Defendants did anything other than take the distribution as alleged by Plaintiffs or to suggest that KEC took any action that was unlawful or not in the ordinary course of business; and to the extent that Lia Sophia challenges West's right to pursue a class action or to act as a class representative, Lia Sophia's arguments are premature. Plaintiffs are represented by John Shannon Marrese, Esq. -- jmarrese@siprut.com -- Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- & Todd Lawrence McLawhorn, Esq. -- tmclawhorn@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC Defendants are represented by Eric L. Samore, Esq. -- esamore@salawus.com -- Albert M. Bower, Esq. -- abower@salawus.com -- Ronald David Balfour, Esq. -- rbalfour@salawus.com -- & Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner, Esq. -- yhoeppner@salawus.com -- SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC ADT CORPORATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Apollo Global Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter Roy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The ADT Corporation, Naren Gursahaney, Thomas Colligan, Richard J. Daly, Timothy Donahue, Robert Dutkowsky, Bruce Gordon, Bridgette Heller, Kathleen Hyle, and Christopher Hylen, Case No. 12160 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 4, 2016), arises out of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the ADT Board of Directors in approving the sale of the Company to an affiliate of certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC and co-investors and merged with a subsidiary of Prime Security Services Borrower, LLC, for $42.00 per share in cash. Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, The ADT Corporation is a provider of security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst (#4788) O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 Facsimile: (302) 295-2873 E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 AMERICAN GRILL: Violated FLSA, "Rivers" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------- Shanice Rivers, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Grill, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00413-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and unpaid compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). American Grill is in engaged in food chain services industry. Its line of business includes distributing, packing, and selling of food. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq. FARAH & FARAH, PA 10 W Adams St 3rd Fl. Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 396 5555 Facsimile: (904) 358 2424 E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends 3 Class Suits in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. is defending against three purported class action lawsuits in New Jersey, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's common stock during different periods, all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. "It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants," Amicus said. The Company anticipates that these lawsuits will be consolidated into a single action. Amicus is a global, late-stage, patient-focused biotechnology company engaged in the discovery and development of a diverse set of novel treatments for patients living with devastating rare and orphan diseases. We own exclusive global rights to three clinical development programs that have the potential to address significant unmet needs, each with $500 million to $1 billion estimated global market opportunities. AMN HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Travelling Nurses OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Evette Osuegbu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., and Kaiser Permanente International, and Does 1-50, Case No. RG16810383 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 7, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' failure to pay their traveling nurses all the wages they are owed, and failure to compensate them for overtime, including double time. AMN Healthcare, Inc. is engaged in the business of health care staffing in the State of California. Kaiser Permanente International is engaged in the business of health care and hospital services in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Appeal in Shareholder Lawsuit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Amtrust Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs' appeal in the shareholder litigation remains pending. The Company said, "We and certain of our officers were defendants in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purported to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013." "On April 24, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the related actions, appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of co-lead counsel. On September 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. "The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. The lead plaintiffs asserted the Section 11 claim on behalf of persons or entities who purchased our Series A preferred stock in or traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013 and did not sell those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to December 12, 2013. On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which the lead plaintiffs opposed. The Court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice on September 29, 2015. The plaintiffs are appealing the Court's decision, and the appeal is pending. AmTrust underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance products, including workers' compensation, commercial automobile, general liability and extended service and warranty coverage, in the United States and internationally to niche customer groups that we believe are generally under served within the broader insurance market. BHFC OPERATING: Violated IWC Wage Order, "Villarin" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Villarin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BHFC Operating LLC d.b.a. Bottega Louie, a limited liability company, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616136 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles Cty., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid balance of the full amount of meal period and rest break wages, including interest thereon, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, as well as consequential damages, pursuant to the California Labor Code (CLC), Business and Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order. BHFC Operating, doing business as Bottega Louie, operates as a restaurant. The Company offers lunch and dinner, breakfast, deserts, cocktails, catering, and bar services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612 0988 Facsimile: (213) 947 1211 - and - Douglas Han, Esq. Shunttatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 7502 Facsimile: (818) 230 7259 BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: Faces "Ebbe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Ebbe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Blackhawk Specialty Tools LLC and Billy Brown, Case No. 5:16- cv-00347-XR (W.D. Tex., April 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an oilfield down-hole tool company located in San Antonio, Bexar County Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY 906 Basse, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 822-5666 Facsimile: (210) 822-5650 CALUMET SPECIALTY: FLSA Case Settlement Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final judgment has been entered by the U.S. District Court approving the settlement in a collective action lawsuit. On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Jonathan Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Wolfe"). The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015 and the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 26, 2015, adding that Anchor's failure to pay overtime to a subclass of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (the "Pennsylvania Act"). For this subclass, the Wolfe plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The portion of the potential liability that relates to the period prior to March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired Anchor, is eligible for indemnification under the securities purchase agreement that effected that transaction; however, the right to indemnification under the securities purchase agreement for the potential Wolfe liability is subject to a deductible and limitations otherwise set forth in the securities purchase agreement. On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a tentative settlement of this litigation. On September 3, 2015, the U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2016, a final judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court approving the settlement. The settlement amount is not material to the consolidated financial statements. Calumet is an independent producer of high-quality, specialty hydrocarbon products in North America. CCL INDUSTRIES: Violated Exchange Act, "Litwin" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Harold Litwin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of defendant Checkpoint Systems, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. William Smoot Antle, III, George Babich, Jr., Stephen N. David, Harald Einsmann, Julie S. England, Marc T. Giles, Daniel R. Maurer, Jack W. Partridge, CCL Industries, Inc., CCL Industries USA Corp., and Checkpoint Systems, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01569-LDD (E.D. Penn., April 6, 2016), seeks to enjoin a shareholder vote to a proposed transaction unless and until problems are remedied, under the Exchange Act. The lawsuit arose out of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by CCL (Proposed Transaction) following an unfair process, in exchange for inadequate consideration, and without disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company shareholders. CCL Industries, a specialty packaging company, manufactures and sells labels, containers, and consumer printable media products. It operates through Label, Avery, and Container segments. The Label segment offers pressure sensitive, shrink sleeve, stretch sleeve, in-mold, precision printed, die cut metal and plastic components, and expanded content labels; and pharmaceutical instructional leaflets; and extruded film materials for a range of decorative, instructional, and functional applications in the consumer packaging, healthcare and chemicals, consumer durables, electronic device, and automotive markets. The Company is based in Toronto, Ontario. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534 2590 Facsimile: (310) 247 0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com CHARLESTON COUNTY: "Peiffer" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Elizabeth A. Peiffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Charleston County School District, Case No. 2016-CP-10-01008, was removed from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01042-RMG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. Charleston County School District is a school district within Charleston County, South Carolina, that educates roughly 45,000 kindergarten to 12th grade students in 80 schools. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Riley Holmes, Esq. GIBBS AND HOLMES PO Box 938 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 722-0033 Facsimile: (843) 722-0114 E-mail: aholmes@gibbs-holmes.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian Quisenberry, Esq. Carol B. Ervin, Esq. Stephanie N. Ramia, Esq. YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS PO Box 993 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 577-4000 Facsimile: (843) 579-1382 E-mail: bquisenberry@ycrlaw.com cervin@ycrlaw.com sramia@ycrlaw.com CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Matthew" Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the plaintiff, v. Gary Torgow, Gary S. Collins, Jennifer M. Granholm, Ronald A. Klein, Robert H. Naftaly, Thomas L. Schellenberg, David T. Provost, Max A. Berlin, Paul E. Hodges Iii, Barbara J. Mahone, Albert W. Papa, Arthur A. Weiss, Chemical Financial Corporation, and Talmer Bancorp, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11261-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2016), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 25, 2016, Talmer's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the Merger Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Talmer will receive $1.61 in cash and 0.4725 shares of Chemical per Talmer share (Merger Consideration). Based on Chemical's closing price as of January 25, 2016, the Merger Consideration is valued at $15.64 per share. On March 31, 2016, defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the Registration Statement) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed Transaction. Chemical Financial operates as the holding company for Chemical Bank that provides a range of traditional banking and fiduciary products and services. The principal markets for the company's products and services are the communities in Michigan where the bank's branches are located and the areas surrounding these communities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq. ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC Grand Marais Professional Centre 14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 170 Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Telephone: (313) 821 5905 Facsimile: (313) 821 5906 E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Natural Gas-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick R. Herzog and Amy K. Herzog, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by merger to Chesapeake Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc., and Tom L. Ward, Case No. 5:16-cv-00325-F (W.D. Okla., April 6, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to rig bids, fix prices and depress the market for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold and working interests. Chesapeake Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries are the second- largest producer of natural gas and the eleventh largest producer of oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. is a successor by merger to Chesapeake Exploration, L.P. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Chesapeake Energy Corp. Sandridge Energy, Inc. operates a petroleum and natural gas exploration company headquartered at 123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry W. West, Esq. Bradley C. West, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 West Highland Street Shawnee, OK 74801 Telephone: (405) 395-4699 Facsimile: (405) 275-0052 E-mail: brad@thewestlawfirm.com terry@thewestlawfirm.com - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300 P.O. Box 505 Charleston, SC 29451 Telephone: (205) 238-6757 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com - and - A. Hoyt Rowell III, Esq. James L. Ward Jr., Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN LLC P.O. Box 1007 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 216-6509 E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com jward@rpwb.com - and - Chris Stucky, Esq. STUCKY FIELDS LLC 214 W. 18th St., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 659-9970 Facsimile: (816) 659-9969 E-mail: chris@stuckyfields.com CHILD WORKS: Recalls Plastic Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rings: Child Works, of Carollton, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 121,000 pairs of Plastic Trapeze rings in the United States (in addition about 6,500 were sold in Canada and about 5,500 in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The rings can unexpectedly crack or break during use, posing a fall hazard to children. This recall involves only the yellow plastic trapeze rings. They are triangular in shape with rounded sides and have a loop at the top. They measure about 81/2 inches high by 61/2 inches wide. The yellow rings come as a pair and were connected to a trapeze bar. They were sold either as a separate component or as an attachment on the following Rainbow(R)-branded residential wooden playsets: All-American, Backyard Circus, Carnival, Fiesta, King Kong, Monster, Sunray, Sunshine and Rainbow. All of these playsets have an aluminum plate located on the front of the wooden swing beam with the following name stamped on it, "Playgrounds America," "Rainbow Play Systems Inc.," or "Sunray Premium Playgrounds." Rainbow has received more than 100 reports of the rings cracking or breaking, including 15 with reports of injuries consisting of bumps, bruises, lacerations, concussion and one broken finger. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/QuJMgz The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Rainbow dealers nationwide from January 2007 through December 2011 and at several mass merchandisers including Sam's Club, Toys R Us and Walmart from January 2009 through December 2009. The playsets retailed for between $900 and $10,000. Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled rings, contact Rainbow for ring removal instructions, then remove the rings from the playset and receive a $10 gift card. CINDERELLA SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Martinez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Yesenia Martinez, Clerk US District Court, Alexandria. Virginia 4261 Duke Street; Abigail Candelaria Rodriguez Melendez; Roxana Elizabeth Merino Del Salgado; Carolina Ada Lopez Carcamo; and Reyna Benitez De Fuentes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated the Plaintiffs, v. Cinderella Services Inc., and Cinderella Bermudez, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00391-AJT-MSN (E.D. Virg., Alexandria Div., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, vacation benefits, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act (DCMWA) and the Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL). Cinderella Services operates a home and commercial cleaning service trading as "Maid to Clean" with its principal place of business in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. 616 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 836 9030 Facsimile: (703) 683 1543 CROCS INC: Settlement of Employee Suits Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Crocs, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the California State Court has entered its final order approving the settlement of employee class action lawsuits. On August 8, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in California State Court against a Crocs subsidiary, Crocs Retail, LLC (Zaydenberg v. Crocs Retail, LLC, Case No. BC554214). The lawsuit alleged various employment law violations related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses. The Company filed an answer on February 6, 2015, denying the allegations and asserting several defenses. On June 3, 2015, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in California State Court against Crocs Retail, LLC (Christopher S. Duree and Richard Morely v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. BC583875), making substantially the same allegations as in the Zaydenberg lawsuit. The parties attended a mediation on June 26, 2015, and reached a settlement for $1.5 million, which will release the claims in both lawsuits. On September 4, 2015, the California State Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set the final approval hearing for December 14, 2015. At the final approval hearing, the California State Court entered its final order approving the settlement and final judgement. "We consider this matter closed," the Company said. Crocs, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are engaged in the design, development, manufacturing, worldwide marketing and distribution of casual lifestyle footwear and accessories for men, women, and children. DECA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Golf GPS Bands Due to Burn Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Deca International Corp., d/b/a GolfBuddy, of La Palma, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000 GolfBuddy golf GPS bands. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The band charging ports can produce an electrical charge to exposed skin, posing a burn hazard to consumers. This recall involves GolfBuddy BB5 golf GPS LED bands. The band is a wearable GPS unit that operates as a pedometer, distance monitor and watch and comes preloaded with golf course information. It is made of plastic with a stainless steel casing, has a LED display screen and a two-pronged connector at the end for closure. The display screen is flush with the top side of the band and has four buttons on the perimeter of the band. The wristband is about one inch wide and comes in black with interchangeable wristbands in large and small sizes and in the colors lime, navy and orange. GolfBuddy is molded on the outer part of the band. The model BB5 is on the back of the recalled unit below the charging port. Recalled units do not have a yellow round sticker on the front and on the packaging. The firm has received two reports of consumers being burned. The recalled products were manufactured in South Korea and sold at PGA Tour Superstore, The Golfer's Warehouse, Worldwide Golf Shops and other authorized golf dealers nationwide and online at www.amazon.com and www.golfbuddyglobal.com from April 2015 through January 2016 for about $250. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled golf wristbands and contact GolfBuddy for instructions on how to update the unit with the latest firmware, also available in the firm's website. DHILLON FOODS: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Santiago, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Dhillon Foods, Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC615 818 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. Dhillon Foods, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 17315 Studebaker Road, Suite 105, Cerritos, CA 90703. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: enc@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com DI PIETRO TODD: Faces "Valdivia" Suit in Calif. Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Dipietro Todd Salon Palo Alto. The case is captioned Mayra Valdivia and Amanda Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Does 1-100, inclusive; Dipietro Todd Salon Palo Alto, Di Pietro Tood - Walnut Creek LLC, A California Limited Liability Company; Di Pietro Tood - Post Street LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Di Pietro Todd - Mill Valley LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and Di Pietro Todd - Fillmore Street LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551342 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cty. of San Francisco, April 6, 2016). Dipietro Todd Salon is engaged in the beauty salon business. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq. KITCHIN LEGAL, APC 312 Sutter Street, Suite 316 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 677 9058 Facsimile: (415) 627 9076 E-mail: prk@kitchinlegal.com ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Action in Early Stage ------------------------------------------------------ Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit by William McGee is at an early stage. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non- disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. "This litigation is in its very early stages," the Company said. "We and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted. We cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding." Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed online. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry & Myers Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry Complaint, the Complaints) filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that in connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed online. ENERGY TRANSFER: Dropped From Delaware State Court Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard have been dismissed from the consolidated action in Delaware state court related to the merger with The Williams Companies, Inc. or WMB. Between October 5, 2015 and December 15, 2015, purported WMB stockholders filed five putative class action lawsuits against ETE and other defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits were captioned Greenwald v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11573, Ozaki v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 11574, Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11601, Glener v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11606, and Amaitis v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 11809. The complaints named as defendants the WMB Board, ETE, Energy Transfer Corp LP or ETC, Energy Transfer Corp GP, LLC, General Partner, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC (collectively, with the exception of the WMB board, the "ETE Defendants"). The Greenwald, Blystone and Glener complaints named WMB as a defendant also, and the Amaitis complaint named Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays"), and Lazard Freres & Co. ("Lazard") as defendants. The Greenwald, Ozaki, Blystone and Glener complaints alleged that the WMB Board breached its fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by agreeing to sell WMB through an unfair process and for an unfair price, and that the other named defendants aided and abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The Amaitis complaint alleged that the WMB Board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information about the merger, and that the directors of the WMB Board who voted in favor of the proposed merger violated their fiduciary duties by selling WMB through an unfair process and for an unfair price. The Amaitis complaint also alleged that the other named defendants aided and abetted these supposed breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On January 13, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated, pursuant to a stipulation among the plaintiffs, the Greenwald, Ozaki, Blystone, Glener, and Amaitis actions, along with another case not involving the ETE Defendants, into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844. In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard from the consolidated action. There currently are no lawsuits related to the WMB merger pending against the ETE Defendants in Delaware state court. ENERGY TRANSFER: Dismissal of "Bumgarner" Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and The Williams Companies, Inc. or WMB have moved to dismiss the "Bumgarner" lawsuit. ETE is currently a defendant in two lawsuits in federal district court challenging the proposed merger with WMB. On January 14, 2016, a purported stockholder in WMB filed a lawsuit against WMB and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that ETE and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making allegedly false representations concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. On February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ENERGY TRANSFER: Wants Birmingham Retirement Fund Action Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and The Williams Companies, Inc. or WMB have moved to dismiss the lawsuit by City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. On January 19, 2016, a purported stockholder in WMB filed a lawsuit against WMB, the WMB Board, and the ETE Defendants, captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Armstrong, Case No. 1:16-cv-00017-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the WMB Board has violated its duty of disclosure by issuing a misleading proxy statement in support of the transaction, that a majority of the WMB Board violated its fiduciary duties by voting in favor of the transaction, and that the ETE Defendants aided and abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that the WMB Board and WMB have violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy statement, and that WMB and ETE have violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by supposedly causing a misleading proxy statement to be issued. On January 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery, and all defendants filed an opposition to that motion on February 8, 2016. On February 19, plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of expedited discovery. On February 10, 2016, WMB and the WMB Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on February 18, 2016, the ETE Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ENVESTNET INC: Plaintiffs Drop Merger Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have advised that they will not pursue claims for rescission of the merger agreement or monetary damages, but rather will consent to a dismissal of their claims without prejudice. Envestnet, Merger Sub, Yodlee, and all members of Yodlee's board of directors at the time of the Merger have been named as defendants in two putative class actions challenging the Merger. The suits are captioned Suman Inala v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11461) (filed September 2, 2015 and amended on October 14, 2015) and Guillaume Wieland-Paquet v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11611) (filed October 14, 2015) and are pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Yodlee directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Yodlee through a conflicted process and by failing to ensure that Yodlee's stockholders received adequate and fair value for their shares. The complaints also allege that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by the Envestnet, which contained Yodlee's proxy statement, failed to disclose material information to Yodlee's stockholder. The complaints also allege that Envestnet and Merger Sub aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought as relief, among other things, an injunction against the merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement to the extent it was already implemented, an award of damages and attorneys' fees. On October 16, 2015, plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings and discovery, so as to be in a position to seek injunctive relief preventing Yodlee's shareholders from voting on the proposed Merger. On October 28, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and on November 19, 2015, the Merger was completed. Plaintiffs have since advised that they will not pursue claims for rescission of the merger agreement or monetary damages, but rather will consent to a dismissal of their claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs do intend, however, to seek an as yet unspecified award of fees for purportedly compelling Yodlee to supplement its proxy statement in order to moot certain of plaintiffs' claims. Envestnet is a provider of unified wealth management technology and services. EXCELL ELECTRIC: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Pavel Mora Forte a/k/a Frank Mora, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Excell Electric Systems LLC, Humberto T. Sezumaga, and Talia Sezumaga, Case No. 1:16-cv-21222- JAL (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an electrical contracting company in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM FELTEX CARPET: 2004 Prospectus Omitted Key Info, Says Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stuff.co.nz reports that Feltex Carpet's 2004 prospectus omitted key disclosures which could have acted as a warning to prudent investors, a class action against the company's former directors, owners and sale managers claims. Stuff.co.nz relates that on April 11 the Court of Appeal heard the first arguments of lawyers representing Eric Houghton, the lead plaintiff in class action on behalf of around 3,600 people who invested in the carpet maker. Little over two years after its 2004 initial public offering (IPO), the company collapsed, wiping out the NZ$250 million which thousands of shareholders injected into the company, the report recalls. But Colin Carruthers QC, appearing on behalf of Mr. Houghton and other investors, argued that Justice Robert Dobson applied a test which was too high and "undermined the nature of the obligation that the case has recognised". The test under the Securities Act, was that the contents of the prospectus contained untruths which would influence "prudent, but non-expert investors" Mr. Carruthers, as cited by Stuff.co.nz, said. According to the report, the appellants said the prospectus represented "much more of a marketing document" than an outline of the disclosures that investors would have needed, Carruthers said. Stuff.co.nz says the presentation could have given investors greater confidence that the projections in the document would be met. In the first day of what is expected to be at least four days of arguments, Mr. Carruthers said the prospectus ignored adverse trends which had been presented to the board of directors before the flotation, showing the closing months of the 2003-04 financial year were going to be "difficult," Stuff.co.nz relates. Stuff.co.nz says despite concerns about sales in April and May, the prospectus projected an increase in sales equivalent to an extra 3.8% in revenue. "It is not a reasonable assumption to project an increase in sales volume when the trend is down," Stuff.co.nz quotes Mr. Carruthers as saying. The prospectus also did not disclose that expensive machinery the company had purchased to manufacture woollen carpet was not working, or the extent to which its revenue in Australia was derived from a government grant, Mr. Carruthers told the court, Stuff.co.nz relays. The case is expected to continue until at least April 14, adds Stuff.co.nz. About Feltex Carpets Headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand, and established more than 50 years ago, Feltex Carpets Limited -- http://www.feltex.com/-- is a manufacturer of superior-quality carpet. The Feltex operation included a wool scouring plant, six spinning mills, three tufted carpet mills, a woven carpet mill and offices in New Zealand, Australia and the United States. ANZ Bank placed the company in receivership on Sept. 22, 2006, and named Colin Nicol, Peter Anderson and Kerryn Downey, of McGrathNicol+Partners, as receivers and managers. The TCR-AP reported on Oct. 4, 2006, that Godfrey Hirst acquired Feltex as a going concern, including its assets and undertakings in New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Proceeds of the sale will be used to ease the company's NZ$128-million debt to ANZ Bank. On Dec. 13, 2006, the High Court in Auckland ruled in favor of an Application by the Shareholders Association against Feltex Carpets putting the carpet maker into liquidation. John Vague was appointed as liquidator. FOURSQUARE LABS: Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Tabor" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Edyta Tabor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foursquare Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04008 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unwanted and unsolicited text message and calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Foursquare Labs, Inc. operates a social networking and messaging service called Swarm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com GBG ACCESSORIES: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Risk --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GBG Accessories Group (formerly LF Accessories Group, LLC), of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 Women's Scarves. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The scarves do not meet the federal flammability standards for clothing textiles, posing a burn risk. This recall involves two styles of Ivanka Trump-branded scarves, Beach Wave, in blue, coral and yellow; and Brushstroke Oblong, in blue, red, neutral and green. Both scarves are 76 inches long by 24 inches wide. Scarves are 100 percent rayon with a machine- rolled hem. A black label with "IVANKA TRUMP" embroidered in silver is sewn on the edge of the scarves. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/SiPTzF The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Century 21, Lord & Taylor, Marshalls, TJ Maxx and Stein Mart retail stores nationwide, and online at amazon.com and loehmanns.com from October 2014 through January 2016 for between $ 12 and $68. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and return them to the place where purchased for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the scarves online will be contacted directly by online retailers with return instructions. GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie E. Dickens, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 8:16-cv- 00803-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. GC Services Limited Partnership is a provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com GLOBUS MEDICAL: To Defend Against "Silverstein" Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against the Silverstein litigation. The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief." "We believe the allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual related to this litigation." Globus Medical, Inc. is a medical device company focused on developing products that promote healing in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST: Updates on Merger Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Gramercy Property Trust, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on the merger class action lawsuits. Legacy Gramercy, its board of directors, Chambers Street, and/or Merger Sub are named as defendants in two pending putative class action lawsuits brought by purported Legacy Gramercy stockholders challenging the Merger. Two suits that were separately filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County, captioned (i) Berliner v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and (ii) Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22, 2015), have been consolidated into a single action under the caption In re Gramercy Property Trust Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 652424/2015 (the "New York Action"). In addition, four suits that were separately filed in Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned (i) Jobin v. DuGan, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27, 2015); (ii) Vojik v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004412 (filed August 25, 2015); (iii) Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., 24-C-15-004904 (filed September 24, 2015) (originally filed as two separate suits in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Plemons v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case No. 03-C-15-007943 (filed July 24, 2015) and Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case No. 03-C-15-008639 (filed August 12, 2015), and refiled as a single action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on September 24, 2015); and (iv) Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004972 (filed September 28, 2015) have been consolidated into a single action under the caption Glenn W. Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-15- 004972 (the "Maryland Action," and together with the New York Action, the "Actions"). The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of Legacy Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to the Legacy Gramercy stockholders by agreeing to sell the company for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement, and that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on Form S-4 on September 11, 2015 was materially incomplete and misleading. The complaints also allege that Chambers Street, Merger Sub and/or Legacy Gramercy aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint in the Morris consolidated action also asserts derivative claims on behalf of Legacy Gramercy for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Legacy Gramercy. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief, an award of damages and/or costs/attorney fees. On December 7, 2015, the parties to the Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the settlement of the Actions. While the defendants in the Actions continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of stockholders of Legacy Gramercy, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the courts in New York or Maryland ordering an injunction or damages in connection with the Actions, Chambers and Legacy Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including, among other things, confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to Legacy Gramercy's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which a court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Legacy Gramercy challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Legacy Gramercy stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Gramercy or its successor. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated. On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a purported shareholder of Chambers Street. The action, captioned Elstein v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254- 15 (the "New Jersey Action"), names as defendants Chambers Street, its board of trustees and the Legacy Gramercy. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the trustees of Chambers Street breached their fiduciary duties to Chambers Street's shareholders by agreeing to the Merger after a flawed sales process and by approving improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement, and that Legacy Gramercy aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also alleges that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus was materially misleading and incomplete. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief and an award of damages. On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of the New Jersey Action. While the defendants in the New Jersey Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Legacy Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Chambers shareholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders of Chambers challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Chambers' shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated. The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit. Gramercy Property Trust is a global investor and asset manager of commercial real estate. GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Soresnil Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. d/b/a Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, Case No. 0:16-cv-60717- RNS (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. operates a racetrack and casino in Hallandale Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 463-2001 Facsimile: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com HEALTH CARE: Faces "Shank" Suit Over Harvoni Treatment Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark A. Shank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Care Service Corporation, Bluecross Blueshield of Illinois, and Prime Therapeutics LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03993 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' denial of coverage for Harvoni based on a desire to decrease costs and increase profits, in breach of the health insurance contracts Defendants entered into with Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendants market and sell health insurance programs, contracts, plans, and policies to millions of people in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Rifkind, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN RIFKIND 100 E Huron Street #1306 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (847) 372-4747 E-mail: Norman@RIFSLAW.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Zachary Arbitman, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com eciolko@ktmc.com nlesser@ktmc.com zarbitman@ktmc.com - and - David H. Thompson, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: dthompson@cooperkirk.com HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Iowa SC Affirms Denial of Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Wiggins of the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss the case captioned, GERALD P. YOUNG, MICHAEL L. HAIGH, and SUZANNE M. RUNYON, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant, Case No. 14-1918 (Iowa). On April 23, 2014, Gerald P. Young, Michael L. Haigh, and Suzanne M. Runyon filed a class action alleging the fees HealthPort Technologies, Inc. charged for providing copies of their medical records and billing statements exceeded statutorily imposed limits set forth in Iowa Code section 622.10(6). The company moved to dismiss the petition, alleging section 622.10(6) did not apply to it because it was not a provider as defined by the statute. The district court denied the motion, concluding section 622.10(6)(a) plainly requires fees to be based upon actual cost and does not indicate the limitations it imposes apply only to entities meeting the statutory definition of provider in section 622.10(6)(e)(2). Accordingly, the court concluded the class representatives might establish their entitlement to relief under the pleaded facts. On appeal, HealthPort filed an application for interlocutory appeal and contended that the district court improperly denied HealthPort's motion to dismiss. In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/jLkujx from Leagle.com, Judge Wiggins held that the district court was correct in denying HealthPort's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition. The Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs are represented by Ryan C. Nixon, Esq. -- rcnixon@lamarcalawgroup.com -- George A. LaMarca, Esq. -- glamarca@lamarcalawgroup.com -- & Gary G. Mattson, Esq. -- gmattson@lamarcalawgroup.com -- LAMARCA LAW GROUP, P.C. Healthport Technologies, Inc. is represented by Ryan G. Koopmans, Esq. -- rkoopmans@nyemaster.com -- Angel A. West, Esq. -- awest@nyemaster.com -- Ryan W. Leemkuil, Esq. -- rleemkuil@nyemaster.com -- NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C. HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Fee Recovery Case Fully Briefed ------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in the class action lawsuit related to Concession Fee Recoveries has now been fully briefed by the parties but no oral argument date has been set. In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class period. In October 2014, the court entered final judgement against the Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed by the parties. No oral argument date has been set. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Hertz operates car rental business through the Hertz, Dollar, Thrifty and Firefly brands. HERTZ GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Since then the complaint has been amended several times. The complaint, as amended, alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 14, 2013 through to July 16, 2015, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On November 4, 2015 Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss and on February 2, 2016 the plaintiffs filed their response and a Motion for Leave to File a Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint to address standing issues associated with the lead plaintiff. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Hertz operates car rental business through the Hertz, Dollar, Thrifty and Firefly brands. HILTON WORLDWIDE: "Austin" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Austin, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilton Worldwide Inc., Case No. CACE-16-003442, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60718-MGC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Hilton Worldwide Inc. manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and resorts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J, Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica Berman Jackler, Esq. David E. Block, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 Facsimile: (305) 373-4466 E-mail: jessica.jackler@jacksonlewis.com blockd@jacksonlewis.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Employees Medical Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- David Kelly, Richard Norko, Annette Dobbs and Peter Dellolio, for themselves and others similarly-situated v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-0054 (D. Conn., April 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all retirees of Honeywell International Inc. and surviving spouses, to enforce their right to lifetime "full medical coverage" under collective bargaining agreements and employee welfare plans. Based in Morris Plains, New Jersey, Honeywell International Inc., is a producer of a variety of commercial and consumer products, engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations and governments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. Meiklejohn, Esq. LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, PC 557 Prospect Avenue Hartford, CT 06105-5922 Telephone: (860) 570-4628 E-mail: twmeiklejohn@lapm.or HOUSTON GARDEN CENTERS: Violated FLSA, "Romero" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Romero, on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Houston Garden Centers, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00935 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Houston Garden is a one stop shop garden center to find shrubs, trees, ground covers, flowers, and gardening pots. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778 8182 Facsimile: (832) 778 8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Bat Cape Costumes --------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 Children's LATTJO Bat Cape Costumes (in addition, 750 in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The fabric hook and loop fastener at the neck of the bat cape can fail to detach readily during use, posing a strangulation hazard to children. This recall involves IKEA children's bat cape costumes. The capes are black with gray stripes, 100% polyester, measure 30 inches long by 57 inches wide and have a fabric hook and loop fastener closure at the neck. IKEA, LATTJO and numbers 60311650 and 18937 are printed on a white label sewn into the seam of the cape. IKEA has received three reports outside of the United States of the fabric hook and loop fastener at the neck of the costume failing to detach readily and scratching children's necks. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/L301ul The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from November 2015 through February 2016 for about $13. Consumers should immediately take the recalled bat capes away from children and return the capes to any IKEA store for a full refund. INOAC CORPORATION: Sued in Mich. Over Interior Trim Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota, et al. v. Inoac Corporation, Inoac Group North America LLC, Inoac USA Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No. 4:16-cv-11257-TGB-EA (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers for Interior Trim. The Defendants manufacture and sell Interior Trim to Toyota and certain of their subsidiaries and affiliates for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Alexander E. Blum, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com ablum@manteselaw.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. Yifei Li, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 North Tucker Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC 150 4th Avenue North Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219-2498 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DAVID MCMULLAN BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Phillip Duncan, Esq. RICHARD QUINTUS DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 228-7600 E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com richard@duncanfirm.com - and - Dewitt Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com alex@lovelacelaw.com - and - Gregory Johnson, Esq. G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC 6688 145th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Telephone: (952) 930-2485 E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Defending Customer Suit in Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending a class action lawsuit by an individual customer. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. "We believe that the complaint is without merit and we have filed a motion to dismiss it. Among other things, the Company's customer agreement, federal law and associated industry rules grant broker- dealers broad discretion to close out margin-deficient customer accounts for the broker's protection. Further, we do not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin- deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff," the Company said. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is an automated global electronic broker and market maker. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dispositive Motions Due Sept. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that dispositive motions are due on September 16, 2016, in the "Atwood" class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014." "The lawsuits allege that we made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in our public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to our January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. "On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. "Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April 13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. "On September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the plaintiff's class certification motion. The plaintiff filed its reply to the defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which the defendants filed a sur-reply on November 10, 2015. "Oral arguments on the class certification motion were held on January 20, 2016. No decision has been made by the Court on the class certification motion. The parties are currently undergoing discovery in relation to this matter. Dispositive motions are due on September 16, 2016. "The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "We believe that we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, have denied liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this action or whether the outcome will be material to us. Therefore, we have not accrued for any loss contingencies related to this lawsuit. Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat non-viral, progressive liver diseases. INTERNATIONAL PERFORMING: Faces "Cosio" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against International Performing Arts Academy. The case is captioned Angelica Cosio, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. International Performing Arts Academy, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Does 1-100, Inclusive, and Barbizon School Of San Francisco, Inc., a California Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551337 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cty. of San Francisco, April 6, 2016). International Performing Arts is a talent development school located at Los Angeles, California. JIMMY JAZZ: "Pemberton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- George Pemberton, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Jimmy Jazz, Inc., and any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by Jimmy Jazz, Inc., Case No. 152835/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jimmy Jazz, Inc. is an urban clothing and shoe retailer that operates apparel and footwear retail stores for men, women, and kids in the eastern United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com jnewhouse@vandallp.com KAYABA INDUSTRY: Sued in Mich. Over Shock Absorber Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota, et al. v. Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd. d/b/a KYB Corporation and KYB Americas Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-11256-GCS-AP (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers for Shock Absorbers. The Defendants are the world's largest manufacturers of Shock Absorbers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Alexander E. Blum, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com ablum@manteselaw.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. Yifei Li, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 North Tucker Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC 150 4th Avenue North Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219-2498 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DAVID MCMULLAN BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Phillip Duncan, Esq. RICHARD QUINTUS DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 228-7600 E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com richard@duncanfirm.com - and - Dewitt Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com alex@lovelacelaw.com - and - Gregory Johnson, Esq. G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC 6688 145th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Telephone: (952) 930-2485 E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Ruling Expected in 3 to 6 Months -------------------------------------------------------------- Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016 and a ruling is expected in three to six months. Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010. In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are present record owners of residential real properties located in an area within a two- mile radius of the former Gainesville wood treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values, cleaning of allegedly contaminated homes and punitive damages. The plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised of all current property owners of single family residential properties with a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from the former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000 owners). Under the current scheduling order, class factual discovery closed in May 2015 and expert witness discovery was completed in August 2015. Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the court. Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or limit the testimony of the other side's experts. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on September 30, 2015 and the response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30, 2015. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016 and a ruling is expected in three to six months. Koppers Holdings Inc. is an integrated global provider of treated wood products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds. KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that KPC's renewed motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit in Virgin Islands is now fully briefed and the parties await a ruling by the court. Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is currently a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs claim, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, that KPC's wood preservative products and formulas are defective, and the complaint alleges the following causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud and violation of the Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices statute. The putative class is defined as all users (residential or commercial) of wood products treated with KPC wood preserving products in the United States who purchased such wood products from January 1, 2004 to the present. Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands that contain wood products treated with KPC wood preserving products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for class members' structures. The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014, and KPC has filed a motion to dismiss. On September 28, 2015, the district court denied, without prejudice, KPC's motion to dismiss, finding that, although the plaintiffs have thus far failed to demonstrate their case for personal jurisdiction over KPC in the Virgin Islands, the plaintiffs were nevertheless allowed a limited period of time (through November 6, 2015) to conduct discovery on specific personal jurisdictional issues after which the court would consider a renewed motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of this discovery, KPC renewed its motion to dismiss on November 20, 2015. The motion is now fully briefed and the parties await a ruling by the court. The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be reasonably determined. Although KPC is vigorously defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. Koppers Holdings Inc. is an integrated global provider of treated wood products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us, our founder, former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants")." "On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us, our former Chief Executive Officer and President and our former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants"). "On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. "The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to our compliance with the Lacey Act, the chemical content of certain of our wood products, and our supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. "The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but, on December 21, 2015, the court denied this motion. We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the current status of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final accounting of the settlement fund in the RWA class action lawsuit was to be filed with the court by March 4, 2016. The Company said, "On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, alleging that we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA and a proposed class. RWA sought recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties who are members of the proposed class that received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from us. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. "Although we believed we had valid defenses to the claims asserted, we entered into a settlement of the claims in the RWA Lawsuit. On September 3, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class. Under the settlement agreement, we paid a total of $0.3 million including the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, class notice and administration costs, a sum to RWA and cash payments to members of the settlement class who file valid claims. The settlement amount was accrued in 2014 and was paid into an escrow fund on August 18, 2015. The settlement payment was released to class counsel on October 16, 2015 after the final approval order became a final and non- appealable order. Settlement payments to class members who submitted claims have now been issued by the claims administrator, with a final accounting of the settlement fund to be filed with the court by March 4, 2016. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is now proceeding in the "Gold" class action lawsuit. "On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that we sell is defective," the Company said. "On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold Plaintiffs"). "We moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding a hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016. "In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of individuals in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product, as well as 7 state subclasses of individuals who are residents of California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household use. "Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that our actions violate the law and that we are financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring us to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that we must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of our profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members. "We filed our answer to the Third Amended Complaint on February 3, 2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding. "We dispute the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the "Steele" class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against us. In the complaint, Steele's allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment, (v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i) compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to our breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act." "We dispute the plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions." LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Abrasion Claims-Related Cases Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against litigation relating to abrasion claims. The Company said, "On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and two amended complaints were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abrasion Plaintiffs")seek to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate flooring products from Defendant for personal use in their homes," or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana." "The SAC alleges violations of each of these states' consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment. The Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, seek an order certifying the action as a class action, an order adopting the Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting us from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution of all monies it received from the Abrasion Plaintiffs and class members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and punitive damages. "We filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and the Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a corrected SAC. Our motion was subsequently granted in part and denied in part. The court also denied the Abrasion Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a corrected SAC. The Abrasion Plaintiffs have until March 1, 2016, to file a Third Amended Complaint. "We dispute the Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us, our founder, former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants")." "On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us, our former Chief Executive Officer and President and our former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants"). "On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. "The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to our compliance with the Lacey Act, the chemical content of certain of our wood products, and our supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. "The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but, on December 21, 2015, the court denied this motion. We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the current status of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final accounting of the settlement fund in the RWA class action lawsuit was to be filed with the court by March 4, 2016. The Company said, "On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, alleging that we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA and a proposed class. RWA sought recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly situated parties who are members of the proposed class that received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from us. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. "Although we believed we had valid defenses to the claims asserted, we entered into a settlement of the claims in the RWA Lawsuit. On September 3, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class. Under the settlement agreement, we paid a total of $0.3 million including the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, class notice and administration costs, a sum to RWA and cash payments to members of the settlement class who file valid claims. The settlement amount was accrued in 2014 and was paid into an escrow fund on August 18, 2015. The settlement payment was released to class counsel on October 16, 2015 after the final approval order became a final and non- appealable order. Settlement payments to class members who submitted claims have now been issued by the claims administrator, with a final accounting of the settlement fund to be filed with the court by March 4, 2016. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is now proceeding in the "Gold" class action lawsuit. "On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that we sell is defective," the Company said. "On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold Plaintiffs"). "We moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding a hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016. "In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of individuals in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product, as well as 7 state subclasses of individuals who are residents of California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household use. "Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that our actions violate the law and that we are financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring us to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that we must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of our profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members. "We filed our answer to the Third Amended Complaint on February 3, 2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding. "We dispute the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." M. ARTHUR GENSLER: Breached CLC & Wage Order, "Marasso" Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorenzo Marasso and Benjamin Casey Mcgrath, each of them individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, v. M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-250, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616138 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles Cty., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid Meal Period Premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid overtime, and minimum wage, pursuant to the California Labor Code (CLC) and Minimum Wage Order. GENSLER is a design and architectural firm headquartered in San Francisco with international locations, including an office in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Heather K. Cox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com MDL 2627: Discovery Ongoing in Flooring Products Liability Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is now proceeding in the case, Lumber Liquidators Chinese- Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The Company said, "Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from our flooring products (collectively, the "Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which although not identical are generally similar, including negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act violations, state unfair competition act violations, state deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from us in these class actions." "On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation, (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and consolidating 10 of the related federal class actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. We continue to seek to have any newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court and ultimately, we expect all federal class actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation. "Pursuant to court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The complaint challenged the labeling of our flooring products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. "We filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion. "We also filed a motion to strike nationwide class allegations and a motion to strike all claims of personal injury made in class action complaints, on which the Virginia court has not yet ruled. Discovery is now proceeding in this matter." MIMEDX GROUP: Final Settlement Hearing Held on April 5 ------------------------------------------------------ Mimedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court set the final settlement hearing for April 5, 2016, in the Securities Class Action. Following the publication of an Untitled Letter from the FDA regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the trading price of the Company's stock declined and several putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 17, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the consolidated case in its entirety. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court on November 18, 2015. On November 19, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and has set the final settlement hearing for April 5, 2016. The Company does not believe the terms of the settlement, if finally approved, will have a material adverse effect on its operating results or financial condition. MiMedx(R) is an integrated developer, processor and marketer of patent protected and proprietary regenerative biomaterial products and bioimplants processed from human amniotic membrane and other birth tissues and human skin and bone. MITEL NETWORKS: Still Defends Suits Over Mavenir Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------ Mitel Networks Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend class action lawsuits related to the acquisition of Mavenir Systems. "In March and April, 2015, we were named a defendant in three purported stockholder class actions, two of which have been consolidated, that challenge the acquisition of Mavenir," the Company said. Specifically, two stockholder actions challenging the acquisition of Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015, respectively. On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP. On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect service of the complaint on the Company or any other named defendant. "These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that Mavenir's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted such alleged fiduciary breaches," the Company said. "On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action filed amended complaints, neither of which names us as a defendant. The operative complaint in the consolidated action, filed on January 22, 2016, names our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a defendant. That complaint asserts a single cause of action against our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to certain disclosures made to former Mavenir shareholders in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir. None of the complaints stated any amount of damages. "Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome of such litigation. Mitel Networks is a global provider of cloud, mobile and enterprise communications and collaboration solutions. MORPHO DETECTION: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the settlement in the case captioned, HAROLD VILLANUEVA, Plaintiff, v. MORPHO DETECTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-05390-HSG (N.D. Cal.). Morpho Detection, Inc. is a security company that provides explosives, narcotics, and radioactive detection services in aviation and other transportation facilities. The action began on November 20, 2013, when Villanueva, an employee of Morpho, filed the original Complaint on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws and regulations. Villanueva filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 19, 2014, the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May 26, 2014, and the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) on April 16, 2015. The putative class is comprised of all current and former non- exempt Field Service Technicians, Field Service Technician Leads, Field Service Engineers, and Field Service Engineer Leads employed by Morpho from Nov. 20, 2009 through Dec. 12, 2014. The TAC alleges eight causes of action on behalf of Villanueva and the putative class: (1) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked; (2) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Furnish Wage and Hour Statements; (4) Failure to Maintain Employee Time Records; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages; (6) Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of the FLSA; (7) Unfair Competition; and (8) penalties under the Private Attorney General Act. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement on April 17, 2015, and an amended motion for preliminary approval on May 8, 2015. The Court granted Plaintiff's amended motion on August 12, 2015 Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Harold Villanueva: (1) motion for final approval of the parties' proposed class action settlement; (2) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; and (3) motion for class representative enhancement award. In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/PKjtog from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found that the proposed class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the settlement class members received adequate notice. The Court awarded class counsel $61,250 in attorneys' fees and $1,377.57 in costs and $2,500 as service award to Plaintiff. Harold Villanueva is represented by: Chad Avery Pradmore, Esq. Leonard Thomas Emma, Esq. Michael Robert Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS LLC 580 California St., Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415)766-0268 Morpho Detection, Inc. is represented by Melinda S. Riechert, Esq. -- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- & Michael David Schlemmer, Esq. -- mschlemmer@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP MURRAY OCULAR: "Tur" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- Estrella Tur, individually and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Murray Ocular Oncology & Retina Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, individually, Timothy G. Murray, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-008710-CA- 01(Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs, for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Murray Ocular is located in Miami, Florida. It provides eye cancer treatment and diagnoses of ocular problems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Fl 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattomeys.com apetisco@rgpattorncvs.com rrcguciro@mpattorneys.com pn@rgpattorneys.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: "Cole" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Cole, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 4:16-cv-00920 (S.D. Tex., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company operates an insurance service company located at 350 N. St. Paul St. Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com NATERA INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Van Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm Rosenman, Jonathan Sheena, Roelof Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward Driscoll, Jr., James Healy, John Steuart, Sequoia Capital XII, LP, SC XII Management, LLC, Lightspeed Venture Partners VIII, LP, Lightspeed Ultimate General Partner VII, Ltd., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird Co. Inc., and Wedbush Securities Inc., Case No. CIV538020 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), 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. Natera, Inc. is a diagnostics company and provider of molecular and bioinformatics technology. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201- 9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com NCJB RESTAURANT: Doesn't Properly Pay Service Staffs, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NCJB Restaurant LLC d/b/a Justin's Grill, Neal Pascale and Charles Pascale, Case No. 505273/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Banquet Service Staff portions of service charges paid by customers hosting private events at Justin's Grill between, which are purported to be gratuities for Banquet Service Staff, and other statutory wages in accordance with the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a Tuscan styled steakhouse restaurant which hosts private events and banquets for dining customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 NEUSTAR INC: Virginia Court Dismissed Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- NeuStar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court in Virginia has entered a Final Order dismissing all claims in a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, or the Alexandria Division, against us and certain of our senior executive officers. The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased our securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive relief." "On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014, we moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint. On December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to our motion to dismiss. On December 29, 2014, we filed a reply brief to the IPRS opposition. "The Alexandria Division heard oral arguments on the motions on January 22, 2015 and on January 27, 2015, and issued an order granting our motion to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with prejudice. On February 25, 2015, counsel for IPRS filed a notice of appeal. "On July 28, 2015, the IPRS, on behalf of itself and the proposed settlement class, on the one hand, and certain of our senior executive officers on the other hand, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Alexandria Division, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement of the claims. The Alexandria Division granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 22, 2015. The final hearing before the Alexandria Division took place on December 3, 2015 and a Final Order was entered dismissing all claims with prejudice. "The settlement amount did not have a material impact to our consolidated financial position and results of operations. Neustar offers authoritative, hard-to-replicate data sets and proprietary analytics that provide insights to help clients promote and protect their businesses. NIPOAMERICAN INC: Recalls Mattresses Due to Noncompliance --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Nipoamerican, Inc., of Marlborough, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of about 325 Mattresses. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. All Niposul and NipoFlorida Elegance, Elegance Gold, and Evolution mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard for mattresses. This recall involves all models and sizes of Niposul and NipoFlorida Elegance, Elegance Gold, and Evolution mattresses. The Elegance and Evolution mattresses are white and the Elegance Gold mattresses are white with black sides. NIPOBRASILEIRA and ORIENTAL J2000 are embroidered on the side of the mattress. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/hLQmsB The recalled products were manufactured in Brazil and sold at Niposul stores in Massachusetts and NipoFlorida stores in Florida from July 2014 through October 2015 for between $1,200 and $6,500. Consumers should contact Niposul or NipoFlorida for free mattress covers to bring the mattress into compliance with the federal standard and protect consumers from a fire. Assistance with installation is available upon request. NISHIKAWA RUBBER: Sued in Mich. Over Body Sealing Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota, et al. v. Nishikawa Rubber Company and Nishikawa Standard Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-11260-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers for Body Sealing. The Defendants manufacture and sell Body Sealings to Honda, Toyota, and certain of their subsidiaries and affiliates for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Alexander E. Blum, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com ablum@manteselaw.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. Yifei Li, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 North Tucker Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC 150 4th Avenue North Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219-2498 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DAVID MCMULLAN BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Phillip Duncan, Esq. RICHARD QUINTUS DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 228-7600 E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com richard@duncanfirm.com - and - Dewitt Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com alex@lovelacelaw.com - and - Gregory Johnson, Esq. G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC 6688 145th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Telephone: (952) 930-2485 E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com NORTEK INC: Settled Florida Action; Tennessee Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Nortek, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has settled a class action lawsuit in Florida but continues to defend the class action lawsuit in Tennessee. The Company said, "In an action initiated on May 21, 2014, Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nortek Global HVAC"), our wholly owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-BB, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In addition, in an action initiated on October 3, 2014, Nortek, Inc., Nortek Global HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer, et al. v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee." These lawsuits allege that the copper evaporator and condenser coils in Nortek Global HVAC's residential heating and cooling products are susceptible to a type of potential corrosion that can result in coil leaks and eventual failure of the units. The Florida action sought compensatory damages associated with Nortek Global HVAC's alleged wrongdoing, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Tennessee action seeks damages associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 29, 2016, the Court in the Florida action entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of Florida consumers. Subsequently, the Company reached a nominal settlement with the two named plaintiffs in the Florida action. In the Tennessee action, no arguments or ruling with respect to class action status have occurred to date. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against the claims in the Tennessee action. At this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss in the Tennessee action is remote and has not recognized a loss or liability in such action; however, it is possible that events could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss, which could ultimately have a material impact on our business. The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material loss as the Tennessee action progresses. Nortek is a global, diversified company whose many market-leading brands deliver broad capabilities and a wide array of innovative, technology-driven products and solutions for lifestyle improvement at home and at work. NTT TRUCKING: Faces Suit in Del. Over Duty of Care Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Tania Ibarra Neria, Gregory Scott Tobias, as wife and husband, Sandra Tania Ibarra Neria and Gregory Scott Tobias on behalf of their minor children, Lucca Tobias Ibarra and Andrei Tobias Ibarra and Guadalupe Neria Ramirez v. Curtis R. Lewis, NTT Trucking, LLC and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Case No. S16C-04-005 MJB (Del. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), arises out of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Curtis R. Lewis' breach of duty of care by recklessly, carelessly and negligently operating the vehicle under his control so that, without warning or notice, the rear trailer dual wheel tire disengaged from the trailer and struck the front of Plaintiff Sandra's vehicle. The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking company in Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Dunn Gelof TUNNELL & RAYSOR, P.A. 30 East Pine Street PO Box 151 Georgetown, DE 19947 Telephone: (302) 856-1450 OUTERNATIONAL BRANDS: Faces "Chen" Class Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Outernational Brands, Inc. The case is captioned Michelle Chen and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Outernational Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01634 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2016). Michelle Chen is a pro se plaintiff. PALMS SOUTH: Faces "Jean" Suit Over Age and Racial Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pascal Jean v. The Palms South Beach, Inc., Case No. 2016-008709- CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir., April 6, 2016), alleges causes of action for age and national origin discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, as a result of the adverse treatment the Plaintiff experienced and as a result of his dismissal from employment with the Defendant. The Palms South Beach, Inc. operates a 4-star hotel located at 3025 Collins Ave, Miami Beach, FL 33140. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-416-5000 Facsimile: 305-416-5005 E-mail: agp@rEipattomcys.com PARMALAT CANADA: Recalls Chocolate Skimmed Milk Products -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 11, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Parmalat Canada Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10424 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Beatrice Chocolate 200 ml MR 17 AGRT 0 68200 00102 9 Partly 1606 Skimmed Milk 1% M.F. Beatrice Chocolate 473 ml MR 17 AGRT 0 68200 20094 1 Partly 1606 Skimmed Milk 1% M.F. Beatrice Chocolate 1 L MR 17 AGRT 0 55300 11303 5 Partly 1606 Skimmed Milk 1% M.F. PELICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Rechargeable LED Flashlights ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: March 3, 2016 Posting date: March 3, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56536 The Pelican 9410L flashlight is a large rechargeable LED flashlight that is equipped with lithium ion battery packs and replacement battery packs. The flashlight is intended for professional and industrial users. The Flashlight is available in yellow and black and in two different battery technologies: nickel metal hydride and lithium ion. Only battery packs that contain green shrink wrapped cells are included in the recall. The flashlights equipped with lithium ion battery packs ("Battery Packs") and replacement battery packs are the subject of this recall. Item Description Manufacturer Part Number ---------------- ------------------------ 9410L Flashlight in Yellow 9410-021-245 9410L Flash light in Black 9410-021-110 9419L Replacement Battery Pack 9413-301-001 The battery packs in the flashlights can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injury to Canadians related to the use of the affected flashlights. Pelican has received two reports of overheating Battery Packs. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 800 units of the flashlights and 18 units of replacement battery pack were sold across Canada. Approximately 3,800 units of the flashlights and 150 units of replacement battery pack were sold in the United States. The recalled flashlights were sold from May 2014 to January 2016 at Sports and specialty stores nationwide, online at Amazon.com and other industrial supply dealers or distributors in both Canada and in the United States. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Pelican Products (flashlights) Inc. 23215 Early Avenue, CA 90505 Torrance UNITED STATES Manufacturer: HYB Battery Company (battery cells) Ltd. Min'an Rd, Longgang Shenzhen, Guangdong CHINA PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Extended Brilliance Workspace NM --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 8, 2016 Posting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57580 The AutoSPECT Pro Application was only designed to reconstruct cardiac SPECT data obtained with detectors positioned at 90 or 180 relative to one another. However, certain gamma cameras, e.g., the Marconi AXIS and IRIX cameras, permit acquisitions at other relative detector angles. Philips has become aware that data acquired at these other angles will not be correctly reconstructed by AutoSPECT Pro, and the results will likely be erroneous. Affected products: EXTENDED BRILLIANCE WORKSPACE NM Lot or serial number: ALL Model or catalog number: 459800090831 Manufacturer: PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS (CLEVELAND), INC. 595 MINER ROAD CLEVELAND 44143 Ohio UNITED STATES PHYSICIANS GROUP: "Valentine" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Valentine, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Physicians Group Services, P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00414- TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Physicians Group is a group of medical specialist providing medical services in Jacksonville and Middleburg, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq. FARAH & FARAH, PA 10 W Adams St 3rd Fl. Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 396 5555 Facsimile: (904) 358 2424 E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Cooked Chicken Nuggets Due to Plastic -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corp., a Waco, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 40,780 pounds of fully cooked chicken nugget products that may be contaminated with extraneous plastic materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The fully cooked chicken nugget products were produced on Oct. 5, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 20-lb. cardboard boxes containing two, 10-lb. clear plastic bags of fully cooked chicken nuggets labeled as "GOLD KIST FARMS Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty Fritters." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. P- 20728" inside the USDA mark of inspection and include package codes 5278105021, 5278105022, 5278105023, 5278105000, and 5278105001. These items were shipped for institutional use to Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. The problem was discovered after the firm received several consumer complaints regarding plastic contamination of the chicken nuggets. The firm notified FSIS personnel of the issue on April 6, 2016. 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. POTAMOULA INC: "Lemus" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & PMWA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sadi Lemus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Potamoula, Inc., doing business as: Oregon Diner, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01599-GEKP (E.D. Penn., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and cost, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The Defendant operates a restaurant called Oregon Diner at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael G. Hollander, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 981 3794 E-mail: mhollander@clsphila.org PREVOST: Recalls Multiple Vehicles Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 4, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 551 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016108TC ID number: 2016108 Manufacturer recall number: SR16-18 On certain vehicles, due to a missing clip a coolant line could rub against a braided fuel hose at the AHI 7th injector. Over time, this could cause the fuel hose to become compromised, which could result in fuel spraying onto hot exhaust components increasing the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealer will inspect the fuel line for abrasion and replace it if necessary. The coolant line will be removed. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- PREVOST H3-41 COACH 2015 PREVOST H3-45 COACH 2012 PREVOST X3-45 COACH 2012 PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Still Defends "Hsu" Case -------------------------------------------- Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et. al. The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." Puma is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the development and commercialization of innovative products to enhance cancer care. REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo" -------------------------------------------------------------- RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Stokes" class action has been placed in suspense pending the United States Supreme Court decision in "Spokeo". The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case in suspense until the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins." RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software- enabled solutions for the rental housing industry. REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo" --------------------------------------------------------------- RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Jenkins" class action has been placed in suspense pending the United States Supreme Court decision in "Spokeo". In November 2014, the Company was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv758. This case has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case in suspense until the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software- enabled solutions for the rental housing industry. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Integra 3 Micromanipulators --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 11, 2016 Posting date: April 7, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57842 Research Instruments is voluntarily recalling the power supply cable for the Integra 3 Micromanipulator. Research Instruments internal testing has discovered a minor materials fault with the power supply cable (2-54-031). Affected products A. Integra 3 Micromanipulator Lot or serial number: Serial numbers not available. Model or catalog number: 6-54-100 Manufacturer: RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS LIMITED BICKLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK FALMOUTH, CORNWALL TR114TA UNITED KINGDOM RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Chocolate Iced Eclairs --------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 11, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Rich Products of Canada Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10435 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Rich's New York 226 g 1665338 0 57592 78449 8 Style Chocolate Iced Eclairs ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Estradiol Products --------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 8, 2016 Posting date: March 29, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57682 The reason for the recall is related to a situation where the manufacturer has identified during an internal investigation, that the substance fulvestrant may lead to falsely elevated results in the Elecsys Estradiol II and Elecsys Estradiol III assays. Affected products: A. ESTRADIOL II Lot or serial number: All lots. Model or catalog number: 3000079190 Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH Sandhoferstrasse 116 Mannheim 68305 GERMANY B. ESTRADIOL III Lot or serial number: All lots. Model or catalog number: 6656021190 Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH Sandhoferstrasse 116 Mannheim 68305 GERMANY ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Protein (Latex) High Sensitive Assay --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 15, 2016 Posting date: April 7, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57836 Reason Affected products This recall is related to the under-recovery of lot number 604450- 01 of Tina-quant Cardiac C-Reactive protein (latex) high sensitive (cat# 11972855216) in human serum and plasma. Affected products: A. HITACHI TINA-QUANT C-REACTIVE PROTEIN (LATEX) HIGH SENSITIVE ASSAY (CRP) Lot or serial number: 604450-01 Model or catalog number: 11972855216 Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH Sandhoferstrasse 116 Mannheim 68305 GERMANY SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Hickey" Suit Over PFOA-contaminated Water -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hickey, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of O. H., infant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., and Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00394-GLS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 6, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged release into the environment of Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)-containing waste that caused class members' drinking water to become contaminated and unreasonably dangerous for normal and foreseeable human consumption or use. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. is a producer of engineered high performance polymer products for virtually every industry around the globe, including automotive, medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, food, beverage, airline, truck manufacturing, appliances, construction, and microelectronics. Based in Morris Plains, New Jersey, Honeywell International Inc., is a producer a variety of commercial and consumer products, engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations and governments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen G, Schwarz, Esq. Hadley L. Matarazzo, Esq. FARACI LANGE, LLP 28 E. Main Street, Suite 1100 Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 325-5150 Facsimile: (585) 325-3285 E-mail: sschwarz@faraci.com hmatarazzo@faraci.com - and - Gerald J, Williams, Esq. Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq. Michael J. Quirk, Esq. WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 557-0099 Facsimile: (215) 557-0673 E-mail: gwilliams@wcblegal.com eberezofsky@wcblegal.com mquirk@wcblegal.com - and - Eric Chaffin, Esq. Roopal P. Luhana, Esq. CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP 600 Third Ave., 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (888) 480-1123 Facsimile: (888) 317-2311 E-mail: chaffin@chaffinluhana.com luhana@chaffinluhana.com SETRA: Recalls S417 2004, 2006 Models Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 4, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer, Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 2 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016109TC ID number: 2016109 On certain vehicles, that had a lower control arm replaced from service parts stock, the lower control arm housings may crack along the crimp crease. Under certain circumstances, this could cause the control arm to separate and fail resulting in a loss of vehicles stability, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the lower control arm. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SETRA S417 2004, 2006 SIEMENS MEDICAL: Recalls E. Cam and Symbia E Systems ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 1, 2016 Posting date: March 10, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57482 As a result of user error complaints regarding injuries resulting from collimator change, Siemens has determined that for E. Cam or Symbia E systems, although the existing user manual is correct, additional supplemental instructions, with the inclusion of visual aids, may further clarify and emphasize the proper collimator change process. A customer advisory notice is being issued to advise customers that Siemens is providing an addendum to the Symbia E and E.Cam user manual with specific enhancements to the instructions for collimator change. Incidents during collimator change may be avoided by operators properly following specified instructions. Affected products: A. E.CAM SIGNATURE SERIES Lot or serial number: ALL Model or catalog number: 07333235 07333284 Manufacturer: Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc. Molecular Imaging Group, 2501 North Barrington Road Hoffman Estates 60192 Illinois UNITED STATES B. SYMBIA E DUAL HEAD SYSTEM Lot or serial number: SN 1012 Model or catalog number: 10275879 Manufacturer: Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc. Molecular Imaging Group, 2501 North Barrington Road Hoffman Estates 60192 Illinois UNITED STATES SLATER & GORDON: Maurice Blackburn Extends Claim Period ------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn has expanded the claim period for its planned class action against Slater & Gordon to allow more aggrieved shareholders to recoup funds. SMH relates that the class action law firm, which floated its action against its across-town rival in December, has also secured litigation funder International Litigation Partners to back the action. According to SMH, shareholders who purchased shares between April 1, 2015 and February 28, 2016 are able to participate in the action. SMH says Maurice Blackburn had previously set a December 16, 2015 close date but has extended the period to take in possible losses suffered prior to Slater & Gordon's February 29 announcement of its half-year results. Those results were marred by a swingeing AUD876 million of write- down, the majority of which was associated with the value of Slater & Gordon's Quindell business, the report states. SMH says the smaller ACA Lawyers is also preparing a class action against Slater & Gordon, and has already secured litigation funding for its action. According to the report, Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said Slater & Gordon shareholders were suitably aggrieved. "Institutional and retail investors in Slater & Gordon that want the best chance to recover the maximum possible now have a clear choice to go with the nation's leading class action law firm Maurice Blackburn, backed by what we believe are the best funding rates available," the report quotes Mr. Watson as saying. "More than AUD2 billion dollars in shareholder value has been lost in a matter of months. To shock the market on multiple occasions is not just bad luck. It raises serious questions about internal processes and about the quality and timing of information released to the market," Mr Watson said. Slater & Gordon's February write down led to its banks requiring weekly updates on the firm's cash flow position, says SMH. Slater & Gordon has until the end of this month to convince its bankers that it is back on track financially, the report states. Slater & Gordon said declined to comment, adds SMH. As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific on March 14, 2016, The Sydney Morning Herald said struggling listed law firm Slater & Gordon has suffered another blow after the Australian Securities Exchange dumped the stock from its top 200 list. SMH said the removal of Slater & Gordon from the ASX 200 is significant because it means some of the index funds which are required under their self-imposed mandates to hold shares in ASX 200 stocks will exit the stock. According to the report, the law firm is in a fight for survival following a horror 2015 that saw its market capitalisation plummet from more than AUD2.7 billion to AUD121.6 million on March 11 following an accounting scandal in its UK arm and weaker-than-expected growth in both its British business and its Australian arm. Slater & Gordon has until April 30 to satisfy its bankers it can remain as a viable organization, SMH relayed. Its financial advisers from insolvency firm McGrath Nicol are delivering weekly cash-flow updates to the firm's bankers, the report stated. Australia-based Slater & Gordon Limited (ASX:SGH) -- https://www.slatergordon.com.au/ -- is engaged in operating legal practices in Australia and the United Kingdom. The Company operates through segments, including Slater and Gordon Australia (AUS), Slater and Gordon UK (UK) and Slater Gordon Solutions (SGS). The AUS segment conducts a range of legal services within a geographical area of Australia. The AUS segment also includes investments, borrowing and capital rising activities. The Company's UK segment conducts a range of legal services in in the United Kingdom. The UK segment also includes the investments in SGS. The SGS segment offers legal services relating to road traffic accidents, employee liability and noise, including hearing loss. The SGS segment also provides complementary services in health and motor services. The Company's business and specialized litigation services include commercial, estate and professional negligence litigation and class actions. SSN HOTEL: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yazer" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Remi Yazer and Luis R. Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SSN Hotel Management, LLC d/b/a Red Roof Inn, and Shri Hari New York, LLC d/b/a Red Roof Inn, and Peter Bhaidaswala a/k/a Peter Bhai a/k/a Piyush Bhaidaswala, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01679-CBA-VMS (E.D. N.Y., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). SSN Hotel Management is one of the fastest growing hotel management, development, and investment groups in the Northeast region. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone. (516) 248 5550 Facsimile: (516) 248 6027 STANCE HEALTHCARE: Recalls Bassinet Carts Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: March 9, 2016 Posting date: April 4, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57746 Stance Healthcare has received notification that bassinet drawers are opening when the bassinet is being pushed around a corner. Stance Healthcare has evaluated the risk of this occurrence and determined that this could lead to tipping of the cart causing injury. In order to reduce any possible risk of injury, the company has decided to perform corrections on the bassinets. Affected products: BASSINET CART Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: SBC110 SBC115 SBC120 Manufacturer: STANCE HEALTHCARE INC 275 SHOEMAKER STREET KITCHENER N2E 3B3 Ontario CANADA STONER BOAT: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Yosvani Romero, individually and other similarly situated individuals v. Stoner Boat Works, Inc., Jonathan M. Stoner, and Joshua Stoner, Case No. 2016-008467-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir., April 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stoner Boat Works, Inc. is engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-416-5000 Facsimile: 305-416-5005 E-mail: agp@rEipattomcys.com STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konyo" Action Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Orly Konyo, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC and Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01930-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., April 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendants are companies that use the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engage in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE HERSH 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 Facsimile: (201) 507-6311 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com STORTZ TOYS: Recalls 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 11, 2016 Posting date: March 11, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57496 The Green Tones 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel is a children's musical instrument with eight metal bars in multiple colors mounted on a wooden base shaped like a monkey. The bars are individually attached to the base with one screw at each end. The second bar from the top is pink, 3.5 inches long and has a "B" stamped on it. This is the bar that needs to be replaced. The Green Tones logo is stamped on the back of the glockenspiel and the tracking number HS0178410914 is printed in black at the bottom. The paint on the pink metal note bar of the glockenspiel contains lead in excess of the allowable limit. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. Neither Health Canada nor Stortz Toys has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product in Canada. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 21 units of the recalled Monkey Glockenspiel were sold in Canada. The recalled glockenspiel was sold from November 2015 to January 2016 at select Toy Stores in Canada. Manufactured in Israel. Distributor: KHS America Mt. Juliet Tennessee UNITED STATES Importer: Stortz Toys Toronto Ontario CANADA SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in Ga. Over Contract Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Felix f/k/a Sarah M. Ellis, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00066-WCO (N.D. Ga., April 5, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged breach of contract. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. provides mortgage solutions for first-time homebuyers and homeowners in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq. Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq. THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2142 Vista Dale Court Atlanta, GA 30084 Telephone: (770) 866-0898 Facsimile: (855) 873-2090 E-mail: adam@wernerlaw.com matt@wernerlaw.com - and - Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Esq. Kevin Edward Epps, Esq. FORTSON BENTLEY & GRIFFIN, P.A. Building 200, Suite 3A 2500 Daniell's Bridge Road Athens, GA 30606 Telephone: (706) 548-1151 E-mail: jwd@fbglaw.com kee@fbglaw.com - and - Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Steven Rosenwasser, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3417 Telephone: (404) 881-4151 E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com rosenwasser@bmelaw.com SUSHI STUDIO: Faces "Yang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Angie Yang, an individual, DER JULIE YANG, an individual, individually and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sushi Studio, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC615123 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Sushi Studio, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 4917 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90804. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. E. Kimberly Lind, Esq. KO LEGAL, INC. 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 628-5548 Facsimile: (714) 242-1590 E-mail: Kim@KO-Legal.com TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Suit Ongoing in Texas State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to the TRC/TRP merger deal. Targa said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the date to answer or otherwise respond to the state court lawsuit related to the Merger was set for February 29, 2016. On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "State Court Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against Targa Resources Corp., TRP (as a nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of our general partner (the "TRP GP Board") and Merger Sub (collectively, the "State Court Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Leslie Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No. 2015-75481, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 234th Judicial District (the "State Court Lawsuit"). The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board breached express and/or implied duties under the TRP partnership agreement and (ii) TRC, our general partner, and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties. The State Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of our general partner. Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the State Court Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the TRP GP Board adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for TRP common unitholders. The State Court Plaintiffs now seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded. The date to answer or otherwise respond to the State Court Lawsuit was set for February 29, 2016. TARGA RESOURCES: 2 Unitholders Sue in S.D. Tex. Over Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on January 6 and 19, 2016, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "Federal Court Plaintiffs") filed two putative class action lawsuits challenging the disclosures made in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger against TRP and the members of the TRP GP Board (the "Federal Court Defendants"). These lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Targa Resources Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-00041, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Federal Court Lawsuits"). The Federal Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Federal Court Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the TRP GP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Federal Court Plaintiffs allege, in general, that the preliminary and definitive joint proxy statements/prospectuses filed in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger fail, among other things, to disclose allegedly material information concerning (i) the TRP GP Conflicts Committee's financial advisor's and TRC's financial advisor's analyses in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger, (ii) certain TRC and TRP projections, and (iii) the events leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger. The Federal Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of our general partner. Based on these allegations, the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the Federal Court Defendants disclosed the allegedly omitted information summarized above. The Federal Court Plaintiffs now seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded. The Federal Court Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees. One of the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to prevent the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with the TRC/TRP vote and/or merger. On January 29, 2016, this Plaintiff was denied his request for a TRO. The date for the Federal Court Defendants to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Federal Court Lawsuits has not yet been set. Neither the State Court Defendants nor the Federal Court Defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") can predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report, nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve such litigation. Defendants believe these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against these lawsuits and any other actions challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. TARGA RESOURCES: Settlement of ATLS Merger Suit Has Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has granted final approval of the settlements in the consolidated lawsuits related to the merger of Targa Resources Corp. ("Targa," "Parent" or "TRC"); and Atlas Energy, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("ATLS") and Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("APL"). Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL (the "APL Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership, the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the "APL Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits were styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the "Tulsa Lawsuit"); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated APL Lawsuit"). In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the "ATLS Plaintiffs" and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the "Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS GP, its managers, Targa and GP Merger Sub (the "ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the APL Lawsuit Defendants, the "Atlas Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits were styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit" and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the "Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits"), though the Kane lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs alleged that (a) APL GP's managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL's unitholders was inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers favored their self- interests over the interests of APL's unitholders. The APL Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also alleged that the registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated's analysis of the Atlas mergers; (ii) APL and the Partnership's financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers. Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs alleged that (a) ATLS GP's directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and ATLS have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders was inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP's directors favored their self-interests over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.'s analyses of the Atlas mergers; (ii) the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS' financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers. Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages, and attorneys' fees. The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general, the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL would provide supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11, 2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. On January 21, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the settlements in the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits and dismissed the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits with prejudice. THOR MOTOR: Recalls Hurricane and Windsport 2014 Models ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 9, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 17 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016114TC ID number: 2016114 Manufacturer recall number: RC0000112 Certain motorhomes may have part of the exhaust pipe running too close to a vehicle storage compartment. The exhaust should have a heat shield in this area, as without one, the heat would not be properly dissipated around the exhaust of the vehicle. This would increase the risk of melting and/or a fire, which could result in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install a heat shield to protect the storage compartment. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- THOR MOTOR COACH HURRICANE 2014 THOR MOTOR COACH WINDSPORT 2014 TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 2, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 400124 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016103TC ID number: 2016103 Manufacturer recall number: SRC241 & SRC242 On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Note: This recall supersedes recalls 2013113, 2014224, 2015197 and 2015269. Correction: All vehicles having not received a replacement inflator as part of the previous recall will now have a replacement inflator installed by dealers. For Matrix model vehicles, dealers may replace the front passenger airbag assembly with one equipped with a newly specified inflator. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ---- ---------------------- TOYOTA COROLLA 2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2003 TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2002 TOYOTA MATRIX 2003 LEXUS 2002 TOYS R US: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Damages for Injuries Under TCCWNN ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Roldan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toys R Us, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01929-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 6, 2016), seeks damages for injuries occurring from Defendant's unsafe products, pursuant to the statutory and common law standards, and the New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNN). Defendant's Terms and Conditions allegedly purport to deprive Plaintiffs of legal rights to pursue a remedy for harms arising from Defendant's tortious acts. Similarly, the Terms and Conditions purport to absolve Defendant of its responsibility to refrain from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers and protecting against the unlawful acts of third parties. Toys R Us is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at Wayne, New Jersey. The Company is operates a chain of retail stores and websites under the names Toys R Us and Babies R Us. The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Naveh, Esq. NAVEH LAW 32-02 Norwood Dr. Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410 Telephone: (646) 881 4471 Facsimile: (661) 430 4471 E-mail avi@navehlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 E-mail: NYJG@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Updates Pistachio Products Recall ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 10, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Transilvania Trading (Pirate Joe's) Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10464 The Food Recall Warning issued earlier has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Transilvania Trading is recalling Trader Joe's brand pistachios from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no confirmed illnesses in Canada associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States by Wonderful Pistachios and may be associated with an outbreak in the United States. The recall by the company is published on the website of the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Trader 50% Less Salt 16 oz BEST IF USED 1509123256501 Joe's Roasted & (1 lb) BY 2016 OCT 28 Salted 454 g Pistachios BEST IF USED 1509123256401 BY 2016 OCT 28 BEST IF USED 1509123256601 BY 2016 OCT 29 BEST IF USED 1510123307101 BY 2016 NOV 03 BEST IF USED 1510123307201 BY 2016 NOV 04 BEST IF USED 1510123307301 BY 2016 NOV 04 0011 1348 Trader Dry Roasted & 16 oz BEST IF USED 1509123256101 Joe's Unsalted (1 lb) BY 2016 OCT 27 Pistachios 454 g BEST IF USED 1509123256201 BY 2016 OCT 28 BEST IF USED 1509123256301 BY 2016 OCT 28 0007 9990 Trader Dry Roasted & 16 oz BEST IF USED 1509123259901 Joe's Salted (1 lb) BY 2016 OCT 28 Pistachios 454 g BEST IF USED 1509123260001 BY 2016 OCT 28 BEST IF USED 1509123260101 BY 2016 OCT 29 BEST IF USED 1510123294901 BY 2016 NOV 03 UNITED PET: Recalls Top FinTM Power Filters ------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 1, 2016 Posting date: March 1, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57300 This recall involves five models of Top FinTM Power Filters. The models included in this recall are Top Fin Power Filters 10, 20, 30, 40 and 75. The filters are black with a trapezoid shaped top and were sold exclusively at PetSmart. The words "TOP FIN" are molded into the top of the filter. The filters were also sold as part of Top Fin 5.5 and 10 gallon LED aquarium kits. The filters are UL certified. A conductor on the pump motor can become exposed and electrify the aquarium water, posing a shock hazard to consumers. Neither United Pet Group nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in Canada or in the United States. Approximately 3,294 units of the recalled products were sold exclusively by PetSmart in Canada; and approximately 155,000 of the recalled products were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from September 2015 to December 2015 in both Canada and in the United States. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: United Pet Group Inc. Earth City UNITED STATES UKROP'S HOMESTYLE: Recalls Turkey, Pork, and Beef Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Ukrop's Homestyle Foods, a Richmond, Va. establishment, is recalling approximately 2,881 pounds of turkey, pork, and beef products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The ready-to-eat turkey, pork, and beef items were packed on April 1 and 2, 2016, and exhibit sell-by dates of April 4 and 5, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 185.02-lb. of individually packaged 9.25 OZ "ROASTED TURKEY & COLBY JACK PINWHEELS." --- 161.82-lb. of individually packaged 9.25 OZ "BLACK FOREST HAM & PROVOLONE PINWHEELS." --- 153.70-lb. of individually packaged 9.25 OZ "ANGUS ROAST BEEF & CHEDDAR PINWHEELS." --- 821.76-lb. of 41OZ trays of "HONEY HAM & HONEY TURKEY PINWHEEL TRAY." --- 806.40-lb. of 41OZ trays of "HONEY TURKEY & HAVARTI PINWHEEL TRAY." --- 752.64-lb. of 41OZ trays of "HONEY HAM & SWISS PINWHEEL TRAY." The products subject to recall bear establishment numbers "EST. 19979" and "P-19979" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were distributed to retail locations in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The problem was discovered on April 4, 2016, when Ukrop's Homestyle Foods received notice from their distributor of the recall involving Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips. (See FDA press release here.) The red pepper strips were recalled by Roland Foods, LLC on April 1, 2016, due to the possible presence of glass fragments in the product. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. FSIS has received no additional reports of injury or illness from 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. UTOPIA HOME: Faces "Manigault" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Manigault, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Utopia Home Care Inc. and Susan Lutes, Case No. 2:16- cv-01036-RMG (D.S.C., April 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of offering a range of home care services such as live-in aides, home health aides, nurse services, and in home therapy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 Facsimile: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net VIVO BRAND: Recalls Sexual Enhancement Products Due to Sildenafil ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 7, 2016 Posting date: March 7, 2016 Type of communication: Advisory Subcategory: Drugs, Natural health products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product withdrawal, Important Safety Information Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57436 Vivo Brand Management Inc. is recalling more natural health products promoted for sexual enhancement: Forta for Men Daily, Forta Xpload and Durazest For Men Volume. As in previous recalls, these products may contain an undeclared drug: sildenafil. Sildenafil is a prescription drug that should only be used under the supervision of a health-care practitioner and may pose serious health risks. Health Canada is in the process of suspending all affected product licences given the inclusion of prescription drug ingredients. Products affected: --- Forta for Men Daily (NPN 80054633), available in bottles of 30 capsules. --- Forta Xpload; Durazest For Men Volume; X-Delite Volumizer (NPN 80035218), available in bottles of 60 capsules and blister packs of 2 capsules. Consult with your doctor if you have used this product and have health concerns. Report any adverse events to Health Canada. Consumers who have bought or used Forta for Men Daily, Forta Xpload and Durazest For Men Volume, particularly those with heart conditions. Products containing sildenafil can only be sold pursuant to a prescription. Products containing sildenafil or its analogs (very similar substances) should never be used by individuals taking any kind of nitrate drug (e.g. nitroglycerine) as it can cause potentially life-threatening low blood pressure. Individuals with heart problems including high blood pressure, a history of heart attack, stroke, abnormal heart beat or chest pain are at higher risk of cardiovascular side-effects if they use sildenafil and engage in sexual activity. Other possible side- effects of using sildenafil include headache, facial flushing, indigestion, dizziness, abnormal vision and hearing loss. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/nK91qF VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Violated Franchise Law, Napleton Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC, d/b/a Napleton's Volkswagen of Orlando, an Illinois limited liability company, Napleton Sanford Imports, LLC d/b/a Napleton's Volkswagen of Sanford, an Illinois limited liability company, and Napleton Automotive Of Urbana, LLC d/b/a Napleton Volkswagen of Urbana, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, VW Credit, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Volkswagen AG, a German corporation, Robert Bosch, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and Robert Bosch GmbH, a German corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04071 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2016), seek damages and injunctive relief under applicable state franchise protection laws. The lawsuit arose due to Defendants alleged discrimination against dealers in favor of others, or force dealers to use their own affiliates for related business. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628 4949 Facsimile: (708) 628 4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Royalty Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- Rene Goguen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv- 00542-SRU (D. Conn., April 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all individuals who have not received contractually owed royalty payments from World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE") for certain content that has been sold or licensed by the WWE on the World Wrestling Entertainment Network ("WWE Network") and on Netflix. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that organized, operated and promoted entertainment featuring professional wrestling. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brenden P. Leydon, Esq. TOOHER WOCL & LEYDON, L.L.C. 80 Fourth Street Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 324-6164 Facsimile: (203) 324-1407 E-mail: BLeydon@tooherwocol.com - and - Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 606-0207 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com matthew@krislovlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *