/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160510.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 93 Headlines 2169494 ONTARIO: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg 9281-4268 QUEBEC: Recalls Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Products 9281-4268 QUEBEC: Updates Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Recall ALJ REGIONAL: Faneuil Still Defending "Brown" Class Action ALL FLORIDA PARCEL: "Vasco" Suit to Recover Overtime/Minimum Pay ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for June 22 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Defending Against Retailers' Suit in N.D. Cal. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. AUSTRALIA: Mediation in Equine Flu Compensation Case Begins AUTONATION INC: Faces Class Action Over Unexplained Service Fees AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yale" Action Pending AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Suit Ongoing AXA EQUITABLE: "Zweiman" Plaintiff Dismissed Appeal AXA EQUITABLE: "Shuster" Class Action Dismissed AXA EQUITABLE: "O'Donnell" Action Transferred to New York BABCOCK LUMBER: "Walter" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania BARD ACCESS: Recalls Venous Catheter Kits BEST BUY: Class Action Proceedings Stayed Pending Appeal BLUE CROSS: "Richmond SA Services" Sues for Anti-trust Violation BLUE CROSS: "American Surgical" Sues for Anti-trust Violation BLUE EARTH: Bankruptcy Stayed Securities Litigation BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models BP PLC: Shareholders Lose Bid to Revive Oil Spill Class Action BROOKFIELD DTLA: Oral Arguments Held on Bid for Attorneys' Fees BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire & Burn Hazard CANADA: Drafts Letter of Assurance as Afghan Vet Settlement Looms CARMIKE CINEMAS: Faces Securities Class Action in Georgia CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Provides Updates on Texas and Delaware Suits CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 15 Billion Class Action Claim CELLCOM ISRAEL: 013 Netvision Still Faces Class Action Claim CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 13 Billion Class Action Claim CENTENE MANAGEMENT: "Hampton" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay CERAGON NETWORKS: Parties Debate Plaintiffs' Right for Discovery COMPUTER SCIENCES: Cert. Bid for State Law Classes Due May 2016 CONFORMIS INC: Lead Plaintiff Filed Consolidated Amended Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Frozen Organic Sweet Peas CREDIT SUISSE: $110MM RMBS Case Deal Awaits Final Court Approval DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Varela" Case Not Successful DOLLAR GENERAL: "Pleasant" Case Remains Stayed DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Sullivan" Case Not Successful DOLLAR GENERAL: Facing Class Actions Related to Motor Oil Sales DOLLARAMA INC: Recalls Mandarin Oranges in Light Syrup ERIN ENERGY: Faces Class Action and Derivative Complaint FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Texts to Recycled Numbers FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Case Pending FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Automatic Transmission GAMESTOP CORP: Agreed to Pay $72,500 to Plaintiff's Counsel GASTRONOMIA: Recalls Michel et Augustin Cookies Due to Almond GASTRONOMIA: Updates Michel et Augustin Cookies Recall GHIRINGHELLI SPECIALTY: Recalls Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Issacharoff Files Brief in Avandia Class Action GREY PLUME: Recalls Charcuterie Meat Products GS WILCOX: Conn. Judge Denies Gorss' Motels Class Cert. Bid HEILINDMIL-AERO: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. for Sexual Harassment HUNG GAY: Recalls Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Due to Milk HUNG GAY: Updates Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Recall INTERCEPT PHARMA: Settles Securities Class Action for $55MM JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Defective Drug, Risperdal KIA: Recalls V8 Elite 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Class Suit in Israel KLX INC: Securities Class Action Filed in S.D. Florida MAJOR LEAGUE: Still Face Legal Threat Despite Settlement MATCH GROUP: Defending Against Securities Class Action MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. Settlement Proceeds MICHAEL ANGELO'S: Recalls Vegetable Lasagna Products MICHAELS COMPANIES: Background Checks Suits vs. MSI Still Pending MICHAELS COMPANIES: Dismissal of Data Breach Suit Under Appeal MINILAND EDUCATIONAL: Recalls Moogy Toys Due to Choking Hazard NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Sue Lawyers Over Concussion Case Fees NATERA INC: Faces 2 Class Actions in California State Court NATURE'S TOUCH: Recalls Organic Berry Cherry Blend NEC TOKIN: Settles Antitrust Class Actions for $37.25 Million NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk NIKE: Assistant Store Managers' Unpaid OT Class Action Tossed NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk OPOWER INC: Class Action Mulled Over Oracle Merger Agreement ORBITAL SCIENCES: To Pay $165,000 in Fees and Expenses PULASKI FINANCIAL: Missouri Court Dismissed "Patel" Case PIERCE: Recalls Enforcer and Saber 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015 Models Due to Fire Hazard POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015, 2016 Models POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2014, 2015, 2016 Models PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: "Rabin" Sues over Age Discrimination PROSKAUER ROSE: Faces New Class Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $5.9MM ROYAL BANCSHARES: Settlement in NJ Taxpayers Suit Awaits Court OK ROYAL BANK: Still Defends MBS Class Actions ROYAL BANK: Deal in ISDAFIX Suit Subject to Final Documentation ROYAL BANK: Settlement in CDS Action Paid in Escrow ROYAL BANK: Paid $255 Million Settlement in Escrow ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action in Ontario and Quebec RUBY TUESDAY: June 28 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set SABINE OIL: Stourbridge Case Remains Stayed SE3 LLC: "Gooden" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay SIBANYE GOLD: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitrator Granted Claimants' Motion for Stay SILVER CARE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Medical Records SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: "Long" Sues Over Discrimination STAR BULK: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Still Pending STEMCELLS INC: "Guardino" Suit Questions Fees By-Laws STRATASYS LTD: Court Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss SUNEDISON INC: Glenview Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. SUNEDISON INC: Oklahoma Firefighters' Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. SUNEDISON INC: Omega Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. SUNLAND FOODS: "Bolton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SYNERON MEDICAL: Written Summations Submitted in Class Action TALMER BANCORP: "Bushansky" Sues over Shady Merger Deal TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Penny Arcades Machines TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Wertheim" Suit in D.N.J. TRXADE GROUP: Discovery Has Not Commenced in Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Another Class Action in Illinois UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bill That Would Set Fares Fails to Get Support UBS GROUP: $141MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval UBS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss LIBOR Litigation Remains Pending VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Key Aspects Not Yet Disclosed WEN: Faces Another Suit Over Shampoo Adverse Effects WOODBURY CHILD: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Work Termination ZANIMO INC: Recalls Vermi Liquid Products * Class Actions Over Parmesan Cheese Mislabeling Pile Up * Law Firms Take Steps to Avert Additional Data Breaches * Gig Economy Sector to Face More Legal Battles After Uber Deal ********* 2169494 ONTARIO: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 23, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: 2169494 Ontario Inc. (PK Trading) Distribution: Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10554 2169494 Ontario Inc. (PK Trading) is recalling Chongga brand Fish Cake products from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. The following products have been sold in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. 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 --- ---- ------ ---------- Chongga Fish Cake 400 g 11.02.2016 8 801024 032914 (slice) Chongga Fish Cake 1 kg 11.02.2016 8 801024 050208 (mixed) Chongga Fish Cake 500 g 23.11.2016 8 801024 032938 (mixed) Chongga Fish Cake 500 g 07.09.2016 8 801024 032938 (mixed) Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/TkkEQk 9281-4268 QUEBEC: Recalls Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: 9281-4268 Quebec Inc. (A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish market) Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10539 9281-4268 Quebec Inc. / A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish market is recalling Asian Star brand Shrimp Shaped Surimi and Lobster Tail Shaped Surimi from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. Learn more about common food allergies There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. 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 --- ----- ------ ---------- Asian Star Shrimp 300 g Production Date: 0 85737 50300 0 Shaped 08 FEB 2015 Surimi Best Before: 08 FEB Asian Star Lobster 255 g Production Date: 0 85737 50065 8 Tail 08 FEB 2015 Shaped Best Before: Surimi 08 FEB Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/YcSQ9L 9281-4268 QUEBEC: Updates Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Recall ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: 9281-4268 Quebec Inc. (A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish market) Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10539 The food recall warning issued on April 15, 2016, has been updated to include additional distribution information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. 9281-4268 Quebec Inc. / A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish market is recalling Asian Star brand Shrimp Shaped Surimi and Lobster Tail Shaped Surimi from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. The following products have been sold nationally. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. 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 --- ----- ------ ---------- Asian Star Shrimp 300 g Production Date: 0 85737 50300 0 Shaped 08 FEB 2017 Surimi Asian Star Lobster 255 g Production Date: 0 85737 50065 8 Tail 08 FEB 2017 Shaped Surimi Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/YcSQ9L ALJ REGIONAL: Faneuil Still Defending "Brown" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in the Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, that Faneuil, Inc. is named as a defendant in a proposed class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case, styled Brown, et. al., v. Transurban USA, Inc., et. al., was filed on April 15, 2015, alleging that Transurban USA, Inc. ("Transurban"), an express lane operator in Virgina, and its debt collection agents Faneuil and Law Enforcement Systems, LLC ("LES" and together with Transurban and Faneuil, the "Defendants"), violated state and federal law in assessing and seeking to collect administrative fees and penalties for unpaid tolls on express lanes operated by Transurban. Specifically with regards to Faneuil, plaintiffs allege that (i) the Defendants knowingly received and retained wrongful benefits as a result of their wrongful conduct in conscious disregard of plaintiffs' rights, (ii) the Defendants violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practices, (iii) the Defendants knowingly interfered with plaintiffs' contractual relationship with the E-ZPass entities under the E- ZPass contracts and (iv) that Faneuil and LES violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by making false and misleading representations, by engaging in unfair and abusive debt collection practices and by attempting to collect knowingly excessive and inflated fines and fees. Plaintiffs have sought six forms of relief, including to (1) declare Defendants' fee policies and collection methods to be wrongful, unfair, and unconscionable, and enjoin any such future collections; (2) order restitution of fees and penalties paid by Plaintiffs to Defendants; (3) order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants' conduct; (4) award actual damages; (5) award punitive and exemplary damages; and (6) award pre- judgment interest and costs as applicable. On November 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed all claims against Faneuil except for the (i) tortious interference with contract and (ii) violation of the FDCPA claims. Faneuil and the other Defendants have reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs and are working on finalizing a settlement agreement for presentation to the court. "While the outcome of the action and the proposed settlement noted above cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the risk of a material adverse impact is remote," the Company said. ALL FLORIDA PARCEL: "Vasco" Suit to Recover Overtime/Minimum Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Esteban Vasco, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. All Florida Parcel Delivery, Inc. and Alfonso Ruvalcaba, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60926-RNS. (S.D. Fla. April 27, 2016), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees, all overtime wages still owing, along with court costs, interest and any other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a parcel delivery service owned by Alfonso Ruvalcaba based in Broward County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a driver. Vasco claims being denied overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for June 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing on fairness is scheduled for June 22, 2016, in the "Rothal" class action settlement. The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston. The motion to expand the class was withdrawn. The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle. The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the class. The case has been returned to the trial court for further proceedings including trial. The parties and their insurers have entered into agreements in principle to settle this case. The Rothal settlement is subject to various conditions, further court approval, and a hearing on fairness now scheduled for June 22, 2016. There are no assurances that the Rothal settlement will in fact be consummated. The costs associated with the agreement in principle are reflected in ALP's financial statements. The case does not currently have a trial date. If the matter is not settled, the defense of the case will proceed. The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity. Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a purported reservation of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection with this lawsuit. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Defending Against Retailers' Suit in N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that American Express Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims in the case filed by B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors LLC. On March 8, 2016, Plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company, other credit and charge card networks, numerous issuing banks, and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the final approval hearing is scheduled for October 17, 2016, in the "Lopez" class action lawsuit. In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a class of California American Express Card Members whose interest rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 3, 2016. AUSTRALIA: Mediation in Equine Flu Compensation Case Begins ----------------------------------------------------------- ABC Rural reports that the fight for compensation for losses suffered by horse businesses after the 2007 equine influenza outbreak was set to begin on May 2, with parties meeting for mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful and the case is not settled beforehand, the case will go to trial for three months from June 6. The horse flu outbreak resulted in the widespread quarantine of horses, which caused big financial losses for equine businesses such as horses breeders, racehorse owners and horse transporters. A class action is alleging the Commonwealth negligently caused the outbreak after the equine influenza virus escaped from Sydney's Eastern Creek Quarantine Station. Darling Downs horse breeder Gary Turkington is leading the claimants. The lead plaintiff said he purchased two stallions for $1.65 million, which he planned to syndicate but, because of quarantine measures put in place, he says he made a significant loss. "I was unable to sell shares because when I did sell shares, a lot of the shares fell over because people couldn't bring the mares to my property, so there's no point in buying a share in a stallion for 25 grand and not being able to send the mares," Mr. Turkington said. "I basically went into a couple of million debt in five months, and a couple of years later I sold those stallions for five grand," he said. Mr. Turkington is not holding his breath that the mediation will result in fair compensation for those affected by the equine influenza outbreak. He claims the Commonwealth Government wants to see the class action fought out in court. It is a claim reiterated by the Independent candidate for the Federal seat of New England, Tony Windsor, who is calling on agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce to intervene. "The Government doesn't look as though it wants to negotiate with you, and that's the fear that these people have, and if the election is called they have no time to actually get the mediation to work," Mr. Windsor said. "Industry has been told by the Department, and this is why we're asking Minister Joyce to be involved, that they've been informed not to negotiate so that says to me 'red flag'." As outlined in last year's Federal budget papers, there is a compensation fund set aside for those affected by equine influenza, but Mr. Turkington said only lawyers stood to win if a resolution was not found in mediation. "I just want to get back to where I was in 2007, get the debt off my shoulders but what I know is if we go into courts in a month's time and we spend another $15 to $20 million on legals there's going to be very little left for any of us because the longer it goes the more the legals keep chewing it up," Mr. Windsor said. Claims of Commonwealth negligence Tamworth quarter horse breeder and camp drafter Amanda Nicholson is another one of the 587 individuals and businesses who are part of the class action, led by law firm Maurice Blackburn, alleging The Commonwealth was negligent in its administration of the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station. She estimates her horse flu losses to be $300,000 as a result of not being able to utilize a stallion purchased the day before the outbreak. "I hope to see some sort of resolution and be financially compensated. I don't think we're going to receive the full amount, that's unrealistic to expect that, but we have heard that it's not been our fault, we didn't bring it here and I've been at a loss because we didn't campaign that horse," Ms. Nicholson said. "We didn't get the progeny sales, and we had additional transport, veterinary costs, fighter costs, all those sorts of things that went on top. "Why should we have to fork that out when it wasn't our fault to start with? "We need some action on this. It's gone on too long." No legal liability: Joyce In a written statement to the ABC, Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said that a 2008 commission of inquiry into the outbreak, the Callinan Inquiry, did not make a finding of legal liability. QUESTION: In many cases the losses were substantial and resulted in people losing their farms and businesses. Is it not fair that horse business owners are compensated for losses incurred? Following the outbreak of equine influenza the Commonwealth introduced measures to provide financial assistance to those most affected and established and an independent Inquiry into the cause of the outbreak and how it spread. The Callinan Inquiry did not make a finding of legal liability, but the Government adopted its 38 recommendations. QUESTION: Mr Joyce, with just a couple of months from an election, you are openly stating that "a vote for me is a vote for power". As Deputy PM you are saying you have a "lot of pull"? Are you standing behind bureaucratic processes when say you can't say too much about this case because it is before the courts? This is not a bureaucratic process. It is a matter before the court where the Commonwealth is being sued directly by those involved in the class action. It is unfortunate that some have sought to misrepresent what capacity I have as Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Deputy Prime Minister to intervene in this matter. I understand the pressure and financial burden the equine influenza outbreak has had on those in the horse industry, however, my capacity to deliver a better future for the people of New England both as the local member and through my role in the Government is completely separate to having the ability to intervene in sensitive legal matters of this nature. QUESTION: You are the ultimate head of the Department and you have the ability to direct the Department to find a sensible resolution. What have you told your Department about finding a resolution to this case? Are you willing to intervene? The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is not the lead agency in this matter. As such I have no decision-making capacity as to whether or not a settlement can be reached. Under the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation. I have been assured that the Commonwealth will act in good faith and act fairly in handling this litigation and on behalf of those affected I would expect nothing less. QUESTION: Is the Government going to mediation in good faith that a resolution can be found? As previously stated under the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation and I have every expectation that the Commonwealth will act in good faith throughout the mediation process. QUESTION: Plaintiffs allege Government lawyers have made it clear this case will go to court. The case will cost millions of taxpayer dollars and add to the stress of people who have already suffered great loss. Do you support the Government's position if the case is fought in the courts? Again, I can't comment on what government lawyers may or may not have said, suffice to say that I have every expectation that the Commonwealth will act in good faith throughout the mediation process and I would support every effort being made to ensure an equitable outcome can be achieved for all involved. QUESTION: As outlined in previous budget papers in the schedule of risks in the agriculture portfolio there is money in the compensation kitty (Budget Paper 1 2015/16). Why not give it to the people who were wronged by the failings of the Commonwealth Government, as outlined by your predecessor and a Royal Commission? As previously mentioned as Agriculture Minister I do not have the capacity to pre-empt the outcome of the mediation process or any potential court proceedings. AUTONATION INC: Faces Class Action Over Unexplained Service Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that AutoNation Inc., the largest automotive retailer in the U.S., faces a class action lawsuit in Broward Circuit Court challenging some unexplained service charges. Class representatives Jessica Melamed and Sylvia A. Reichert claim the company surprised clients with hidden fees for services with vague descriptions in violation of Florida's Motor Vehicle Repair and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices acts. "These charges are listed on AutoNation repair shop invoices as 'misc. charges,' along with an explanation that these charges are for 'shop supply costs' or miscellaneous shop supplies and waste disposal charges,'" the suit claims. "AutoNation uniformly fails to disclose the unlawful charges to customers before it performs services or repairs." AutoNation's invoice forms outline shop supply costs and miscellaneous supply and disposal charges. They reference charges of $3 or 12 percent of the total cost of labor and parts, whichever is greater. "This charge represents costs and profits to the motor vehicle repair facility for miscellaneous shop supplies and waste disposal," the complaint said. The suit claims customers get the documents only after the company has completed repairs. Ms. Melamed claims AutoNation Mercedes-Benz of Pompano Beach required her to sign a statement acknowledging her right to a written estimate with the option to request one when she dropped off her car for service. It is unclear whether she asked for the estimate, but her bill for more than $3,022 included $59.75 for shop supply costs. On another visit in 2014, a charge for the same amount appeared on a $1,216 invoice. The pattern continued with shop supply costs charged for multiple service visits in 2015. Court records detail in 2014 and 2015 when Ms. Melamed claims she spent a total of about $8,157, including $299 in supply costs. AutoNation operates more than 50 locations in Florida, according to the lawsuit. It also operates car dealerships that sell and service more than 35 vehicle brands. Parts and service accounted for 40 percent of gross profits on nearly $2.8 billion in revenue in 2014, up from $2.6 billion in 2013. The suit suggests deceptive billing boosted AutoNation's financial performance, with hidden markups creating a lucrative profit center. The complaint alleges that instead of providing upfront estimates, the company circumvents the vehicle repair law designed to "reduce the number of five o'clock surprises to customers at the time of paying their bill." State law requires written estimates for repair work exceeding $100 to disclose charges for shop supplies or waste disposal. "AutoNation's conduct, which results in customers being forced to pay unanticipated and undisclosed unlawful charges, is unlawful, unfair and deceptive," according to the suit filed April 11 and assigned to Judge William Haury Jr. The plaintiffs filed a motion on April 26 requesting a transfer from the civil to complex business division. Plaintiffs attorneys are Rachel Soffin, Jonathan Cohen and Marisa Glassman of Morgan & Morgan's complex litigation group in Tampa. Washington attorney Jeffrey Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei has a pending pro hac vice admission request to participate in the litigation. No attorney was listed for AutoNation by deadline, and the company did not reply to requests for comment. AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yale" Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal is pending from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in New York. In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable (the "Policies"). The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its "financial condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period. In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014. In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs and the action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal from the dismissal of the case by Calvin Yarbrough remains pending. In April 2015, the plaintiffs' law firm in the case, Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, filed a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders with "Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders," entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief (return of all premium paid by class members) as the first action on behalf of life insurance policyholders. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. AXA EQUITABLE: "Zweiman" Plaintiff Dismissed Appeal --------------------------------------------------- Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Jessica Zweiman in February 2016 voluntarily dismissed her appeal from a class action ruling. A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that AXA Equitable breached the variable annuity contracts by implementing the volatility management tool. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2015, the New York federal district court granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the Complaint. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. AXA EQUITABLE: "Shuster" Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New Jersey State court in February 2016 dismissed the "Shuster" class action complaint. In November 2014, one of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County ("New Jersey state court"). This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof" and asserts a claim for breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. AXA EQUITABLE: "O'Donnell" Action Transferred to New York --------------------------------------------------------- Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Connecticut federal district court in November transferred the "O'Donnell" action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2015, another of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven ("Connecticut state court"). This lawsuit purports to cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman. BABCOCK LUMBER: "Walter" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- Mary Walter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Babcock Lumber, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Carl Borntraeger, Courtney Borntraeger, and R. Jeffrey Kimball, individually, the Defendants, Case No. GD-15- 05320, was removed from Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00523-CRE to the proceeding. The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Cynthia Reed Eddy. Babcock Lumber Company manufactures and distributes hardwood and building products in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: James W. Carroll Jr., Esq. ROTHMAN, GORDON, FOREMAN & GROUDINE 310 Grant Street Grant Building, 3rd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 338 1117 E-mail: JWCarroll@rothmangordon.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter J. Ennis, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 392 2000 Facsimile: (412) 392 2128 E-mail: peter.ennis@bipc.com BARD ACCESS: Recalls Venous Catheter Kits ----------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Posting date: April 29, 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-58158 Bard Access Systems is informing customers of an incorrect expiration date on product labeling for specific lots of Hickman and Leonard Central Venous Catheter Kits. The expiration date for the needle provided in these specific kits was not reflected in the unit or case product labeling. Product return is not required. Affected products A. LEONARD CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER Lot or serial number: HUYL1323 HUZA0513 HUZB0323 HUZB1191 HUZC1074 HUZD1465 HUZL0688 Model or catalog number: 600630 Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc. 605 North 5600 West Salt Lake City 84116 Utah UNITED STATES B. HICKMAN CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 0600560 0600600 0600620 0600650 Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc. 605 North 5600 West Salt Lake City 84116 Utah UNITED STATES C. HICKMAN 10FR TRIPLE LUMEN CV CATHETER Lot or serial number: HUZA0561 Model or catalog number: 606560 Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc. 605 North 5600 West Salt Lake City 84116 Utah UNITED STATES BEST BUY: Class Action Proceedings Stayed Pending Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a trial court has stayed proceedings in a securities class action lawsuit while an appeal is pending. The Company sid, "In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public." "Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. "We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice. "In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. "On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. "By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. Oral argument was held in October 2015, and we await a decision. "The trial court has stayed proceedings while the appeal is pending. We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter." BLUE CROSS: "Richmond SA Services" Sues for Anti-trust Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richmond SA Services, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Group and Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01089, S.D. Tex., April 27, 2016), seeks treble damages, relief and attorneys' fees and costs for anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of allocating markets among themselves, thereby controlling the prices of premium for their Blue Plans. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is based in Chicago Illinois is composed of 36 health insurance plans that operate under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names. The Plaintiff is represented by: Earnest W. Wotring, Esq. David George, Esq. Karen Dow, Esq. BAKER & WOTRING LLP 700 JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 980-1700 Facsimile: (713) 980-1701 Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com dgeorge@bakerwotring.com kdow@bakerwotring.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP W. Tucker Brown 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 488-1200 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Edith M. Kallas WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Dennis C. Reich REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 Email: dreich@rbfirm.net BLUE CROSS: "American Surgical" Sues for Anti-trust Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- American Surgical Assistants, Inc., d/b/a American Surgical Professionals, Fortbend SA Services, Inc., National SA Services, Inc., Woodbridge SA Services, Inc., Pasadena SA Services, Inc., Sugar Land SA, Inc., Brazos SA Services, Inc. and WV Medical Services, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Group and Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01146, (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2016), seeks treble damages, relief and attorneys' fees and costs for anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of allocating markets among themselves, thereby controlling the prices of premium for their Blue Plans. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is based in Chicago Illinois and is composed of 36 health insurance plans that operate under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names. The Plaintiff is represented by: Earnest W. Wotring, Esq. David George, Esq. Karen Dow, Esq. BAKER & WOTRING LLP 700 JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 980-1700 Facsimile: (713) 980-1701 Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com dgeorge@bakerwotring.com kdow@bakerwotring.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP W. Tucker Brown 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 488-1200 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Edith M. Kallas WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Dennis C. Reich REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 Email: dreich@rbfirm.net BLUE EARTH: Bankruptcy Stayed Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------- As reported by Blue Earth, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 8-K filed on March 24, 2016, a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (Case No. 16-30296-DM). Blue Earth, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, that as a result of the pendency of the bankruptcy case and the application of 11 U.S.C. 362, all proceedings against the Company are automatically stayed until the bankruptcy case is dismissed or closed, including In re: Blue Earth, Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division (CV 14-08263-DSF (JEMX)). BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: A.T.V. Notification type: Safety TC System: Steering Units affected: 4482 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016163TC ID number: 2016163 On certain vehicles, steering coupler splines may become damaged at the rack and pinion. This could potentially result in complete loss of steering, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: To be determined. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CAN-AM COMMANDER XT 800R 2013, 2013 CAN-AM COMMANDER X 1000 2013 CAN-AM COMMANDER LIMITED 1000 2013 CAN-AM COMMANDER DPS 800R 2013 CAN-AM COMMANDER DPS 1000 2013 BP PLC: Shareholders Lose Bid to Revive Oil Spill Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Donal Scully, writing for Splash 24/7, reports that the US Supreme Court on May 2 denied shareholders of BP a request to revive their class action against the Britain-based oil supermajor relating to the loss in share value caused by the Deepwater Horizon disaster, according to Reuters. The shareholders' contention was that BP misrepresented its safety procedures before the April 2010 catastrophe, which saw a fatal explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The blast killed 11 people and was followed by the worst offshore oil spill in US history as it took 87 days to staunch the gush of oil from the uncapped well. The May 2 ruling left in place a ruling from last September by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that refused to certify the suit. BP has already paid out $55bn in liabilities over the disaster, including $18.7bn in settlements with government bodies. BROOKFIELD DTLA: Oral Arguments Held on Bid for Attorneys' Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Maryland State Court was scheduled to hold oral arguments on the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses on April 6, 2016 in the merger-related litigation. Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA, Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the "Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P., and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"), and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the "Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24- C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock Actions"). In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors, and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust, Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 21, 2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s financial advisors. In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors failed to disclose material information regarding BPO's extension of the tender offer. The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the merger was consummated, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief. On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a memorandum of understanding, regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by the defendants, of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $475,000. After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California State Court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding the plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000, which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014. BPO is seeking reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's insurers. In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the Maryland State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the discussions. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff in the Cohen Action and the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an agreement in principle to settle the Preferred Stock Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case with prejudice in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of Series A preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends (the "Dividend Payment") to holders of record on a record date to be set after final approval of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus any attorneys' fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the plaintiff's counsel. The dividend would reduce the amount of accumulated and unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock, and the terms of the Series A preferred stock would otherwise remain unchanged. On August 18, 2015, the Maryland State Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a final fairness hearing for October 27, 2015. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for final certification of the settlement class, final approval of the class action settlement and approval of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, seeking a total fee and expense award of $5,250,000. The defendants submitted their opposition to the plaintiff's fee application on October 13, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking discovery related to the valuation of the Dividend Payment in connection with its fee application and served related discovery requests on the defendants. On October 23, 2015, the defendants filed their opposition to that motion, as well as a motion for a protective order precluding discovery. On October 27, 2015, the Maryland State Court held a hearing to decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement and to rule on the parties' discovery motions. At the hearing, the Court ordered limited discovery to occur prior to ruling on the fee application. On October 28, 2015, the Maryland State Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The time to appeal the order expired on November 30, 2015 without any appeals having been filed. On December 4, 2015, in accordance with the final approval order and the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, the board of directors declared a cash dividend of $2.25 per share to holders of record of its Series A preferred stock at the close of business on December 15, 2015. On January 4, 2016, Brookfield DTLA paid the Dividend Payment totaling $21.9 million using cash on hand. On December 16, 2015, after taking certain limited discovery permitted by the Maryland State Court during the October 27 hearing, the plaintiff served the defendants with its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. That same day, the plaintiff requested that the Court permit it to file the reply memorandum and an exhibit thereto under seal given the confidential nature of the information contained therein. On December 17, 2015, the plaintiff provided the Court with plaintiff's counsel's time records for the Court's in camera review. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a surreply to the plaintiff's reply memorandum after obtaining the Court's permission to do so. The Maryland State Court scheduled oral arguments on the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses on April 6, 2016. Management is not in a position to estimate the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that will ultimately be awarded by the Court. BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire & Burn Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Posting date: April 19, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57888 This recall involves certain energy storage systems sold as two models: Brunton Impel and/or Brunton Impel 2 battery packs. These products are internal rechargeable lithium polymer batteries in a durable, rubberized shell with a capacity of 13,000 mAh at 12 volts. The Impel model is either orange or blue in colour and the Impel 2 model is black and gray. These products do not contain visible identification codes or serial numbers. The Impel 2 model has 16, and 19 volt outputs and a USB port, while the Impel model also has a 12 volt output. The word "Brunton" is embossed on the top of the battery pack, along with the power button and five LED lights. These products weigh 2 lb. 10 oz. each and have dimensions of approximately 7.5" x 7" x 1". The battery pack can overheat, posing a potential fire and burn hazard to consumers and property. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these battery packs. Brunton Outdoor Inc. has received two reports, including one from Canada, of the Brunton Impel battery pack overheating and catching fire, resulting in reports of property damage to the battery pack and its surroundings. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 38 units of the recalled battery packs were sold in Canada. Approximately 1050 units of the recalled battery packs were sold in the United States. Approximately 230 units of the recalled battery packs were sold in Europe. The recalled battery packs were sold from February 2011 to May 2015 in Canada, and in the United States and Europe. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Brunton Outdoor Inc. 1900 Taylor Avenue Louisville Colorado UNITED STATES Manufacturer: Shenzhen Topband Co., Ltd. Top band Industrial Park Tangtou Village, Shiyan Town, BaoAn District Shenzhen CHINA Consumers should immediately stop using the affected stock of Brunton Impel or Impel 2 battery packs, unplug it and contact Brunton Outdoor Inc. for further instructions on how to return the product, without charge, and receive a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact Brunton Outdoor Inc. by telephone at 1-800-443-4871 from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online and click on "Impel Charger Product Recall" the top or bottom of the page or email. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/zQngsY CANADA: Drafts Letter of Assurance as Afghan Vet Settlement Looms ----------------------------------------------------------------- Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press reports that the Trudeau government is drafting a letter of assurance it hopes will end a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans angry about a 10- year-old overhaul of their benefits and entitlements. The legal challenge, which became a lightning rod under the Conservative government, was put in abeyance over a year ago in the B.C. Supreme Court, where it was filed on behalf of six complainants. The legal time-out was intended, at the time, to give the Harper government an opportunity to introduce a series of improvements to the so-called New Veterans Charter, which -- among other things -- replaced lifetime pensions for serious injuries with lump-sum awards and a patchwork of stipends. Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, says those changes -- along with new measures introduced in the Liberal budget and the promise of a return to the lifetime pension -- may be enough for them to drop the case. He says a meeting involving the minister, senior Veterans Affairs officials and lawyers for the Department of Justice, brought them close to a settlement, but the ex-soldiers want to see the federal government acknowledge its commitments in writing. "We told the minister that we didn't need another Rotary Club meeting where he goes around and shakes hands and says how nice everybody is," Mr. Sorochan told The Canadian Press. "We wanted to get a firm commitment from them about what their intentions are to implement the (minister's) mandate letter." After being sworn in last November, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr was ordered, in writing, by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to implement the Liberals' campaign promises and Mr. Sorochan says the measures outlined in the mandate letter satisfy the grievances of his clients. The Liberal budget poured $5.6 billion into veterans programs over six years, but it did not restore lifetime pensions. Since there are thousands of veterans who come under the umbrella of the new system, Mr. Sorochan says it's only natural that the government is trying to figure out how to straighten out the system in a way that's fair to everybody. Grits did not restore lifetime pensions "My guys are quite happy with the way it is going," Mr. Sorochan said, referring to both the regulatory changes and the amount of consultation federal officials have done with the ex-soldiers. Indeed, Mr. Trudeau's commitment to wounded soldiers was on full display on May 2 in Toronto as he joined Prince Harry for events marking the countdown to the 2017 Invictus Games. He underlined the government's recent commitments "Our soldiers deserve the greatest attention and much compassion from their nation," Mr. Trudeau said. "They embody the best of the Canadian identity and have won our respect and our gratitude forever." Lawsuit caused trouble for Tories Aside from embarrassing Conservatives among their core political constituency, the way federal lawyers defended the lawsuit three years ago caused enormous political damage. Their statement of defense made clear that the federal government believed it had no special obligation to soldiers and that promises of care for the wounded, dating back to the First World War, were political statements not binding on present or future governments. Mr. Sorochan says the language has since been modified, but he believes the debate strikes at the heart of the Constitution in the sense that it would be impossible for a nation to raise a citizen's army during war -- or even a peacetime volunteer force - - without some kind of assurance that the wounded and the families of the fallen would receive special attention. CARMIKE CINEMAS: Faces Securities Class Action in Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- Tony Adams, writing for Ledger-Enquirer, reports that Carmike Cinemas, on the path to being purchased by AMC Entertainment Holdings, reported on May 2 a profit of $2.2 million, or 9 cents per share, on total operating revenue of $206.2 million in the first quarter of 2016. That was up from a profit, or net income, of $391,000, or 2 cents per share, on total operating revenue of $184.3 million in the January-March period of 2015. "Our first-quarter results reflect a favorable U.S. box office environment that included blockbuster releases, as well as the successful execution of our theater-level initiatives and the effective integration of recent acquisitions," Carmike President and Chief Executive Officer David Passman said in a statement. The May 2 earnings release follows the March 3 announcement by Columbus-based Carmike and Leawood, Kan.-based AMC that they had signed an agreement in which AMC will acquire the smaller theater chain in a deal valued at $1.1 billion. The purchase is pending approval by federal regulators and shareholders. A class-action lawsuit was filed recently in U.S. District Court claiming the $30-per-share that AMC has pledged to pay Carmike shareholders is too low. Carmike issued its quarterly earnings report on May 2 after the stock markets closed. In earlier trading, its shares slipped 8 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $29.91, the general vicinity its stock has been treading since the major acquisition announcement. The stock's 52-week range is $18.52 to $32.70 per share. Major numbers in the report showed the theater firm's theater- level cash flow rising from $35.5 million to $43.1 million and operating income climbing from $12 million to $15.6 million in the quarter year over year. Revenue from ticket admissions and concessions both rose, as did film exhibition and concession costs, salaries and benefits, and theater occupancy expenses -- all indicative of a theater chain that has grown since Mr. Passman took the helm in June 2009. That growth has included new theaters constructed in leased buildings and acquisitions of smaller theater company's movie complexes. The company also has renovated some of its older theaters along the way. As of March 31, Carmike operated 276 theaters and 2.947 screens in 41 states. It's total debt stands at $463.3 million, up from $454.7 million at the end of December. "Our focus on delivering differentiated food and beverage offerings and innovative dining concepts supported strong first quarter concessions and other spending per patron, marking 25 consecutive reporting periods of year-over-year concessions and other per patron spending growth," Mr. Passman said. "Carmike's 14 percent increase in total concessions and other revenues and 12 percent rise in concessions and other spending per patron again highlight the value of our strategies to drive food, beverage and concession growth." The theater firm reported average admissions revenue per customer of $7.80, with average concessions of $5.31 per person. "In summary, we are pleased with the first quarter financial and operating performance . . . and remain optimistic that the positive consumer, economic and box office environments will continue for the remainder of 2016," Mr. Passman said. Typically, after its earnings reports are released, Carmike conducts a conference call and webcast with Wall Street analysts who track the firm and its industry. It said recently that no call would be held this quarter in light of its pending buyout by AMC Entertainment, which operates AMC Theatres. Class-action lawsuit Not everyone is happy with the acquisition terms. San Diego-based law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP filed the class-action lawsuit April 25 on behalf of John Solak and "all others similarly situated" in the Columbus division of U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Georgia. The suit names Columbus-based Carmike, its board of directors, AMC Entertainment Holdings and Congress Merger Subsidiary Inc., alleging U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission violations. Mr. Solak, using Robbins Arroyo and its attorney Darnell Donahue, alleges the defendants in the lawsuit filed a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC that contained "materially false and misleading" information in order to gain support of shareholders for the sale. It says the filing did not have enough information for shareholders to make an "informed decision" concerning the sale of Carmike. Specifically, according to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that Carmike and its board are not receiving fair-market value for the company based on previous theater acquisitions in the industry. It also notes that analysts who follow Carmike, AMC and others in the motion-picture exhibition sector have placed target prices of between $33 and $36 per share on the company's stock. "Despite Carmike's continued success and impressive admissions revenues per screen growth, defendants agreed to sell the company to AMC for a meager purchase price per screen of only $372,376," the court filing says, pointing toward the median per screen price of $497,002 and average per screen price of $544,632 in six other theater industry transactions since 2012. "We believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously," Carmike said through a public relations firm. The legal filing by Robbins Arroyo said the lawsuit is open to those owning stock shares as of March 3, and asks for anyone who wishes to serve as a lead plaintiff to step forward within 60 days of April 28. Robbins Arroyo LLP, in a release, said it has gained more than $1 billion for shareholders and investors in previous lawsuits it has spearheaded. Major moves by companies, including sales and critical decisions made by management and boards of directors, often are the target of law firms seeking to file suits on behalf of shareholders. Carmike Cinemas and AMC Entertainment Holdings have said they expect the acquisition to be completed before the end of this year. The Columbus company has roughly 8,000 employees, all but the corporate staff working inside its movie complexes scattered across the country. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Provides Updates on Texas and Delaware Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on Texas and Delaware class action lawsuits. Since the public announcement of the proposed Mergers on May 4, 2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of the PMFG Board have been named as defendants in three lawsuits related to the Mergers, which were filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Mergers fail to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II. In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a) that the PMFG Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Mergers for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the Mergers with deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG Board and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects. In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from completing the Mergers on the agreed- upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as other equitable relief as the courts deem proper. Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non- jury trial on August 15, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the Texas Lawsuit plaintiffs filed a Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice. On February 22, 2016, the Delaware Court asked the parties to submit a status report regarding the Delaware Lawsuit no later than March 14, 2016. On August 24, 2015, PMFG made a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K satisfying its obligations under the memorandum of understanding to make additional disclosures to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Mergers, dated as of July 31, 2015. The memorandum of understanding was not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment- related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business. The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 15 Billion Class Action Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "In March 2015, a purported class action was filed against us, by plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming compensation for non monetary damages in connection with allegations that we unlawfully violated the privacy of our subscribers. The amount claimed from us, if the lawsuit is certified as class action is estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 15 billion." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CELLCOM ISRAEL: 013 Netvision Still Faces Class Action Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "In August 2015 a purported class action was filed against 013 Netvision Ltd., or Netvision, and three other defendants, alleging that another defendant unlawfully sold the other defendants, including Netvision, private data of its customers, which was used by the other defendants to approach such customers with commercial proposals. The amount claimed from each of the defendants allegedly purchasing the data, including Netvision, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 1000 for each customer whose private data it allegedly purchased and/or each approach made to such customers, the total of which was assessed by the plaintiff to be approximately 1.5 million customers." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 13 Billion Class Action Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "In December 2015, a purported class action was filed against us and two other Israeli cellular operators, alleging that the defendants unlawfully offer cellular pre-paid calling cards for very high prices by allegedly coordinating such prices. The total amount claimed from all defendants, including us, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 13 billion (out of which, based on the data specified in the lawsuit by the plaintiff, an estimated amount of approximately NIS 6.7 billion is claimed from us)." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: "Hampton" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nikyamicha Hampton and Marquine S. Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Centene Management Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04693 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2016), seeks recovery of all back wages due, statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Defendant operates a call center in Westmont, Illinois where Hampton and Williams worked as call center agents. They claim to have been denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 726-3400 CERAGON NETWORKS: Parties Debate Plaintiffs' Right for Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are now debating the Plaintiffs right for discovery. On January 5, 2015, a motion to approve a purported class action, naming the Company, its chief executive officer and its directors as defendants, was filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), on behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including those who purchased shares during the period following the Company's follow on public offering in July 2014. The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges breaches of duties by the company and its management, by making false and misleading statements in the company's SEC filings and public statements, during the period between July and October 2014. The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to the follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the Company at the time of such presentation. Although the plaintiff admits that, in accordance with the actual results for the third quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as revenues were concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned out to be much lower than the one anticipated. Plaintiff argues that at the time such guidance was presented by the defendants, they already knew, or should have known, that it was incorrect. The plaintiff seeks specified compensatory damages in a sum of up to $75,000,000, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The motion was received by the Company on January 6, 2015 and the Company filed its defense on June 21, 2015. The parties are now debating the Plaintiffs right for discovery. The Company filed its response to the plaintiff's request for discovery on January 25, 2016 and the plaintiffs submitted their response on February 24, 2016. Once the court decides in relation to discovery, it is expected that a date for submission of plaintiff's response to the Company's defense will be set. The initial procedure, i.e. until the District Court decides whether to approve the motion or to deny it, has been conducted for over a year now, and it is difficult to estimate how long it is expected to last. The Company believes that the District Court should deny the motion. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Cert. Bid for State Law Classes Due May 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------- Computer Sciences Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, that the motion for Rule 23 class certification of the California, Connecticut, Missouri, and North Carolina state-law classes is currently due from plaintiffs in May 2016 in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action. On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that the Company violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with respect to system administrators who worked for the Company at any time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that the Company improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that the Company therefore owes them overtime wages and associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes, including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The relief sought by plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil penalties. The Company's position is that its system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements. The Company's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015. On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more than 4,000 system administrators. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunity to opt-in to the action. The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed. The Company's position in this litigation continues to be that the employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were paid in accordance with the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws. We do not believe these additional claims differ materially from those in the original complaint. The next stage in the litigation will be a motion for Rule 23 class certification of the California, Connecticut, Missouri, and North Carolina state- law classes. That motion is currently due from plaintiffs in May 2016. CONFORMIS INC: Lead Plaintiff Filed Consolidated Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ConforMIS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has file a consolidated amended complaint. The Company said, "On September 3, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, our chief executive officer, and chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock in connection with our initial public offering or on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015, which we refer to as the class period." "On November 2, 2015, two motions were filed on behalf of persons seeking to be named as lead plaintiff in the litigation. On November 10, 2015, the Court granted one petition, denied the other, and set a deadline for lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint, which the lead plaintiff filed on January 11, 2016. "The consolidated amended complaint purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the class period because the defendants allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding our manufacturing process prior to our voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for certain of our knee replacement product systems. "Specifically, the complaint alleges that statements made during the class period were false and misleading because our manufacturing processes purportedly were flawed and, as a result of such flaws, a number of our knee replacement product systems were defective. The complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. "We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. An adverse outcome of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We are presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. Additional complaints also may be filed against us and our directors and officers related to our voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for our iUni, iDuo, iTotal CR and iTotal PS knee replacement product systems." COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Frozen Organic Sweet Peas --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 23, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10556 Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. is recalling Organic by Nature brand frozen Organic Sweet Peas from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold by Costco warehouse locations in British Colombia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. 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 Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommends contacting your doctor. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. 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 --- ---- ------ ---------- Organic Sweet Peas- 2.5 kg Best by 8 46358 00061 9 by Organic dates: Nature (frozen) 10.22.17 12.03.17 03.16.18 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/OlUFFg CREDIT SUISSE: $110MM RMBS Case Deal Awaits Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement of US$110 million in a class action lawsuit is still subject to final approval. In class actions and putative class actions against CSS LLC as an underwriter of other issuers' RMBS offerings, CSS LLC generally has or had contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers. However, some of these issuers are now defunct, including affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp (IndyMac). With respect to IndyMac, CSS LLC was named as a defendant in a class action, In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, in the SDNY, brought on behalf of purchasers of securities in various IndyMac RMBS offerings. CSS LLC and five other underwriter defendants agreed to a settlement of the IndyMac class action for a total of USD 340 million. In an order dated September 30, 2014, the SDNY granted preliminary approval to the settlement and held a final approval hearing on February 3, 2015. On February 23, 2015, the SDNY entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, discontinuing the In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. A further class action lawsuit pending in the SDNY against CSS LLC and certain affiliates and employees, New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-5, relates to two RMBS offerings, totaling approximately USD 1.6 billion, sponsored and underwritten by the Credit Suisse defendants. On March 17, 2014, the SDNY granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the second of the two RMBS offerings, having previously certified the class for purchasers of the first offering. The parties have agreed to a settlement of USD 110 million. In an order dated January 6, 2016, the SDNY granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which is still subject to final approval. DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Varela" Case Not Successful -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that a mediation held in the "Varela" lawsuit has been unsuccessful. On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50 ("Varela") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside. In the original complaint, the Varela plaintiff alleges that he and other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs and seeks to represent a putative class of California "key carriers" as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under California's Private Attorney General Act (the "PAGA"). The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 1, 2013. On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and to add putative class claims on behalf of "key carriers" for alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law. The Company filed its answer to the amended complaint on December 23, 2014. The parties have been ordered to engage in informal discovery. A mediation was held in November 2015, which was unsuccessful. DOLLAR GENERAL: "Pleasant" Case Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that a lawsuit filed by Kendra Pleasant has been stayed. On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50 ("Pleasant") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of California's Labor Code. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level employees were not paid for all time worked, provided meal and rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and provided with accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer asking the court to stay all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance of a final judgment in the Varela matter. The court granted the Company's demurrer and stayed proceedings until resolution of the Varela matter. Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to transfer this matter to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside where the Varela matter is pending, which the Company opposed. The court denied the Pleasant plaintiff's motion to transfer. DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Sullivan" Case Not Successful ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that mediation conducted in early March 2016 in the "Sullivan" lawsuit was unsuccessful. On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 100 ("Sullivan") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage statements in violation of California law. The Sullivan plaintiff also alleges that she and other California store employees were not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in violation of California law. The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the PAGA. The Company's response to the amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2015. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on March 12, 2016. The matter has been set for trial on October 31, 2016. A mediation conducted in early March 2016 was unsuccessful. DOLLAR GENERAL: Facing Class Actions Related to Motor Oil Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that the Company has been named as defendant in class action lawsuits related to the sale of motor oil. In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege violation of state consumer protection laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil. Six of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the United States: Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015) ("Barfoot"); Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General Corporation (filed in the Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) ("Cooke"); William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for New Jersey on December 17, 2015) ("Flinn"); John J. McCormick, III v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on December 23, 2015) ("McCormick"); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on December 17, 2015) ("Sanchez"); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) ("Sisemore"). The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC ("Hill"), was filed in Orleans County Superior Court in Vermont on December 22, 2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016. In February and March 2016, the Company was notified of thirteen additional lawsuits alleging similar claims concerning Dollar General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were filed in various federal district courts of the United States: Allen Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016) ("Brown"); Miriam Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on February 10, 2016) ("Fruhling"); John Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky on February 10, 2016) ("Foppe"); Kevin Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of New York on February 8, 2016) ("Gadson"); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 2016) ("Gooel"); Janine Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for Nebraska on February 10, 2016) ("Harvey"); Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Kansas on February 9, 2016) ("Meyer"); Robert Oren v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Missouri on February 8, 2016) ("Oren"); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District Court for Minnesota on February 9, 2016) ("Sheehy"); Gerardo Solis v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016) ("Solis"); Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of California on February 8, 2016) ("Vega"); Matthew Wait v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Arkansas on February 16, 2016) ("Wait"); and James Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on March 15, 2016) ("Taschner"). The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to proceed on a nationwide and statewide class basis, while the plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a statewide class basis. Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent, some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting the sale of the products at issue and requiring the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory damages (including treble damages), punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and a motion to strike the class allegations in the Barfoot matter on February 4, 2016; in the Hill matter on February 8, 2016; in the Cooke matter on February 24, 2016; in the Sisemore matter on March 4, 2016; and in the Flinn matter on March 10, 2016. On March 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation requesting that all cases be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, or, in the alternative to the Western District of Missouri or the Southern District of Florida, for consolidated pretrial proceedings ("Motion to Transfer"). After receiving notice of the Company's Motion to Transfer, the court stayed and administratively closed the Barfoot matter pending a transfer decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The Company's responsive pleadings were due in the McCormick matter on March 21, 2016; in the Fruhling matter on April 4, 2016; in the Meyer matter on April 6, 2016; in the Sheehy matter on April 7, 2016; in the Solis matter on April 8, 2016; in the Foppe matter and Gooel matter on April 15, 2016; and in the Harvey, Oren and Vega matters on April 22, 2016. The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state requirements and is not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether any of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss in these matters; however if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole. DOLLARAMA INC: Recalls Mandarin Oranges in Light Syrup ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Dollarama Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10452 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Fruitropic Broken 284 ml LH 11 ZC 2017 0 63205 19907 8 Segments DE 11 and Mandarin LH 15 ZC 2017 Oranges DE 15 in Light Syrup ERIN ENERGY: Faces Class Action and Derivative Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- Erin Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action and derivative complaint was filed on February 5, 2016, in the Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the Company and on behalf of a putative class of persons who were stockholders as of the date the Company (1) acquired the Allied Assets pursuant to the Transfer Agreement and (2) issued shares to the PIC in a private placement (collectively the "February 2014 Transactions"). The Company said, "The complaint alleges the February 2014 Transactions were unfair to the Company and purports to assert derivative claims against (1) the seven individuals who served on our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions and (2) our majority shareholder, CEHL. The complaint also purports to assert a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the putative class against the seven individuals who served on our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions on the grounds that they purportedly caused the Company to disseminate a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the 2014 Transactions, and a direct claim for aiding and abetting against Dr. Lawal. The plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of the Company and the putative class, an undisclosed amount of compensatory damages. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks no recovery." FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Texts to Recycled Numbers --------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook Inc. on April 26 was hit with a class action claiming the company sends spam text messages to people who get assigned cellphone numbers that used to belong to Facebook users. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at privacy specialty firm Edelson P.C., highlights the headaches created for online communication services like Facebook when cellular carriers recycle previously used phone numbers. The suit claims that when a Facebook user deactivates a phone number and it gets reassigned, the company continues to send automated text messages without the new owner's consent. The suit claims that the unwanted messages violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which carries damages of $500 per violation, a number which can be tripled in cases of willful violations. "Despite knowing that its text messages violate the TCPA, [Facebook] continues to send thousands of text messages to recycled numbers without the text recipients' consent," wrote Edelson's Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- in the April 26 17- page class action complaint. "Facebook's ongoing text messaging is hardly surprising given that each text message sent by Facebook has the potential to directly increase its advertising revenues," he wrote. Consumer-facing technology companies have become big targets for TCPA litigation. Earlier in April, plaintiffs lawyers with the Kazerouni Law Group sued PayPal Inc. for alleged TCPA violations. Lawyers for a Florida woman who sued Facebook in late 2015 over unwanted texts informed the court April 5 that they have reached a settlement. Facebook is represented in that case by Kirkland & Ellis. The Edelson suit seeks to certify a class of cellphone users who received text messages from Facebook without consent and a separate class of people who made an express attempt to get Facebook to stop sending the texts that was ignored. The lawsuit asks that Facebook be barred from any future telemarketing until it establishes an internal "do not call" list as required under the TCPA. In a phone interview on April 27, Edelson partner Christopher Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- said the suit's name plaintiff, Christine Holt of Washington, D.C., made multiple attempts to stop a "barrage" of text messages from Facebook. "This is something that is a known issue. There are known solutions," Mr. Dore said. A Facebook spokesperson didn't immediately respond to an email message seeking comment. FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Case Pending -------------------------------------------- Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is appealing the Court's decision in Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano. The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the conversion. Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of the Summary Plan Description. The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The court ordered that the Plan be reformed. The Company is appealing the court's decision, and the judgment has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. As a result of this development, the Company has determined that it is probable a liability exists. The Company's reasonable estimate of this liability is a range between $100 million and $200 million, with no amount within that range more probable than any other amount. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a charge of $100 million pre-tax ($61 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2015. This amount has been classified as a long-term liability. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this case. In light of the uncertainties involved in this matter, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution will not differ from the amount currently accrued by the Company. FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Automatic Transmission ------------------------------------------------------ Joshua Dowling, writing for CarsGuide, reports that an automatic transmission designed to save fuel has increased complaints among Ford customers who claim it's not a smooth operator. More than 60,000 Ford cars in Australia may be the subject of a new class action because of a transmission that lawyers claim is "unsafe to drive". Ford's twin-clutch automatic -- a similar design to those used in Volkswagens -- is fitted to its Fiesta hatchback, Focus small car and Ecosport SUV. According to Bannister Law, which is proposing the Class Action, the transmission is "defective" because it "slips, bucks, jerks, and harshly engages when driven". The proposed action only includes Fiesta, Focus and Ecosport models made from 2011 to 2014, even though two of the three cars on sale on May 3 continue with the same transmission. Ford replaced the transmission in the Focus to a regular automatic with an update introduced last year. "Customers who've contacted us believe there is clearly a problem with this particular gearbox, some people have returned to dealerships to get their cars fixed up to 10 times for repair or replacement, while others are being asked to sign confidentiality agreements in order to get a refund," said Charles Bannister -- charles@bannisterlaw.com.au -- the principal of Bannister Law. "We believe these faults constitute major defects and trigger a full refund under Australian Consumer Law." On a website inviting owners of affected vehicle to register their interest, a statement from Bannister Law says: "some consumers are concerned that, as a result of their experiences on the road, their vehicles are unsafe to drive". The law firm says it will start the Class Action "should Ford not agree to compensate customers appropriately". A statement from Ford Australia said: "Ford is committed to providing its customers with top quality vehicles. We are equally committed to addressing potential issues and responding quickly for our customers". The car maker said it has "addressed the majority of our customers' questions and are pleased with our ongoing improvement in customer satisfaction levels". A Ford representative said Ford's "PowerShift" transmission uses an "advanced configuration that provides exceptional powertrain efficiency, along with the potential for unique shift feel compared with conventional automatics". GAMESTOP CORP: Agreed to Pay $72,500 to Plaintiff's Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------- GameStop Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, that the Company has agreed to pay $72,500 to plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. As disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, by GameStop Corp., a Delaware corporation ("GameStop" or "Parent"), Parent entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among Parent, Gadget Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Purchaser") and Geeknet Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company" or "Geeknet"), pursuant to which, among other things, Purchaser commenced a cash tender offer for all the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock. On June 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported Geeknet stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies-GameStop, Purchaser, and Geeknet-and individual members of Geeknet's Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiff sought among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. The case is titled Aich v. McCarthy, C.A. No. 11133-VCN. After limited discovery, the plaintiff and defendants agreed on certain additional disclosures to the Company's Schedule 14D-9 filed on June 15, 2015, which were made in Amendment No. 3 to the Schedule 14D-9 on July 7, 2015, and the plaintiff withdrew his motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger. On February 11, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation under which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to himself and without prejudice as to the putative class members. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the disclosures in the July 7, 2015 Amendment No. 3. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $72,500 to plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of a fee or its reasonableness. GASTRONOMIA: Recalls Michel et Augustin Cookies Due to Almond ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gastronomia Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail Gastronomia is recalling Michel et Augustin brand Super Cookies with melty middle from the marketplace because it may contain almond which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to almond should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to almond, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (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 name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Michel Super Cookies 180 g Best before 3760122961708 et with melty 31/12/2016 Augustin middle - Milk chocolate and hazelnuts Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/eaBxtM GASTRONOMIA: Updates Michel et Augustin Cookies Recall ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gastronomia Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10535 The food recall warning issued on April 14, 2016 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Gastronomia is recalling Michel et Augustin brand Super Cookies with melty middle from the marketplace because it may contain almond which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to almond should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to almond, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. 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 name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Michel Super Cookies 180 g All dates 3760122961708 et with melty from 04/2016 Augustin middle - up to and Milk chocolate including and hazelnuts 12/2016 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/1rqLE4 GHIRINGHELLI SPECIALTY: Recalls Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad ---------------------------------------------------------- Ghiringhelli Specialty Foods, a Vallejo, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 33,610 pounds of Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad with White Chicken Meat product that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The Trader Joe's Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad with White Chicken Meat product that is affected by this recall was produced April 26 through May 1, 2016, and has "USE BY" labels on the plastic packaging containing dates 05/02 through 05/07. The following products are subject to recall: 9.3-OZ. clear plastic container packages with the label "Trader Joe's Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad with White Chicken Meat; Sunflower Seeds, Cranberries and a sweet & Spicy Vinaigrette." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-17156" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to Trader Joe's distributors in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. The problem was discovered on May 3, 2016, when the company's vendor of sunflower seeds notified the company that the product might have been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. According to the recalling firm, all affected product has been removed from the market channels. FSIS will verify removal through recall effectiveness checks. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. 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. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Mike Ghiringhelli, Jr., General Manager, at (707) 561-7670 extension 105. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Issacharoff Files Brief in Avandia Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that New York University law professor Samuel Issacharoff filed a brief in his fourth U.S. Supreme Court case of the term, once again standing up for class action plaintiffs. This time, Issacharoff's client is a union benefits fund prosecuting a racketeering class action against GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly defrauding private insurers by falsely marketing the diabetes drug Avandia. If Issacharoff is successful -- as he has been in his three other cases this term -- the justices will decide not to take the case. Mr. Issacharoff's record this year cements his reputation as the man to see if you don't want the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in your class action. It's an unusual specialty within the already constricted niche of Supreme Court litigation, but Mr. Issacharoff seems to have mastered the art of dampening the justices' interest in tough class action issues, even those the court has highlighted. In Wells Fargo v. Gutierrez, for instance, Wells Fargo's lawyers at Covington & Burling argued in a last-minute brief in March that the Supreme Court should hear its challenge to a $203 million judgment for Californians suing over the bank's overdraft policies in order to clear up lingering uncertainty over the constitutional standing of supposedly uninjured plaintiffs. The justices took up that question in this term's Tyson v. Bouaphakeo, and held the Wells Fargo cert petition until the court decided Tyson. The bank said its case could answer the standing questions the Tyson ruling didn't end up addressing. Issacharoff and class counsel from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein countered that standing wasn't even at issue in the case because the trial judge determined every class member was injured by Wells Fargo's policies. The other cert petitions Mr. Issacharoff squelched this term featured a clear split between federal circuits on the emerging issue of whether class actions can be certified without objective criteria to identify potential class members, aside from plaintiffs' affidavits. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said classes may not be certified if affidavits are the only way to ascertain class membership. The 7th Circuit, however, explicitly repudiated the 3rd Circuit's ascertainability standard in July 2015. The circuit split led to two different cert petitions, one by Direct Digital, the class action defendant in the 7th Circuit case; the other by Procter & Gamble, the loser in a 6th Circuit decision that adopted the 7th Circuit view of ascertainability. Mr. Issacharoff was counsel of record for the class in both cases -- and in both, he argued that defendants were ignoring facts to try to arouse the justices' ideological interest. The Direct Digital and P&G cases involved nutritional supplements that were sold with allegedly deceptive ads. Most purchasers, according to the cert opposition briefs, were identifiable through the defendants' own records. Even if ascertainability is under debate among the circuits, Mr. Issacharoff's briefs said, neither the Direct Digital nor P&G cases is the right vehicle for Supreme Court review. Similarly, the new opposition brief in the GlaxoSmithKline Avandia case argues that the Supreme Court should focus on underlying facts and not allow the defendant and its amici to engage in class action fear-mongering. "There is one overriding problem with this account of innocents adrift in the land of rapacious lawsuits," the brief said. "Petitioner and all three of its amici must withhold the fact -- reported all over the public record -- that (GSK) pled guilty to criminal charges and agreed to pay the government $3 billion in what is the largest settlement ever against a pharmaceutical company." The theme of all of Mr. Issacharoff's cert opposition briefs is that facts unique to a particular case overwhelm broader class action issues. His briefs concentrate on the message that specific lower-court rulings are routine and unremarkable, rather than arguing broadly in defense of class actions. Since Justice Antonin Scalia's death, many commentators have speculated that the Supreme Court will be less inclined to scrutinize class actions, and I should point out that all of Mr. Issacharoff's successful cert oppositions this term have been decided after Scalia died. But he fended off some big-business- backed cert petitions while Justice Scalia was still alive, including two related petitions in the infamous moldy washer litigation. If we're headed for a drought in class action cases at the Supreme Court, at least part of the thanks -- or blame, depending on your perspective -- should go to the NYU prof. Mr. Issacharoff declined to comment for this story. GREY PLUME: Recalls Charcuterie Meat Products --------------------------------------------- The Grey Plume Provisions, LLC, an Omaha, Neb. establishment, is recalling approximately 471 pounds of charcuterie meat products that were produced, packaged, and distributed without the benefit of federal inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The salami, soppressata, pepperoni, and chorizo items were packaged on multiple dates between Aug. 4, 2015 and Feb. 11, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 1-lb. packages of "Dill Black Pepper Salami" with Batch #008 and "Best if used by" date of Nov. 11, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Fennel Salami" with Batch #004, Batch #005, Batch #006, and/or Batch #007 and "Best if used by" dates of June 22, 2016, Sept. 30, 2016, and/or Oct. 1, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Pepperoni" with Batch #005 and "Best if used by" date of May 4, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Herbes De Provence Salami" with Batch #005, and/or Batch #006 and "Best if used by" dates of May 10, 2016 and/or Sept. 29, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Soppressata" with Batch #005 and "Best if used by" date of May 4, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Red Wine Garlic Salami" with Batch #005, and/or Batch #006 and "Best if used by" dates of May 4, 2016 and/or Sept. 30, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Gin and Juice Salami" with Batch #004 and "Best if used by" date of Sept. 26, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Chorizo" with Batch #006 and "Best if used by" date of Sept. 29, 2016 listed on the label. --- 1-lb. packages of "Kaffir Lime Salami" with Batch #002, Batch #004, and/or Batch #005 and "Best if used by" dates of July 26, 2016, March 26, 2016 and/or Oct. 21, 2016 listed on the label. The products subject to recall do not bear the USDA mark of inspection and were shipped to wholesale locations in Iowa and Nebraska. FSIS was alerted of charcuterie meat products produced without the benefit of federal inspection by the Iowa Department of Agriculture. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Provisions by The Grey Plume at (402) 934-7690. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. GS WILCOX: Conn. Judge Denies Gorss' Motels Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Gorss Motels Inc. v. G.S. Wilcox & Co. et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-00349-SRU (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill denied, without prejudice, the motion to certify class and the motion to stay. The case alleges violation of the Telecommunications Act. Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin Bellin & Associates LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: 914-358-5345 Fax: 212-571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com HEILINDMIL-AERO: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. for Sexual Harassment -------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Mcneil, and in behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Heilindmil-Aero LLC t/a and/or d/b/a Interstate Connecting Components; Kelly Services, Inc., Brien Burton and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, the Defendant, Case No. L- 001573-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), demands judgment against the defendants with compensatory damages, non-economic compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just, under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging sexual harassment and unlawful discharge. According to the complaint, between August and December 2015, on approximately seven occasions, the Defendant Burton rubbed Plaintiff's shoulders and placed his arm around her. The alleged physical conduct was uninvited, unwelcomed and unappreciated. In response, Plaintiff would shrug the Defendant Burton off her shoulders and tell him that she did not like it. Plaintiff thereby engaged in protected conduct under the LAD. When plaintiff would reject his sexual advances, Defendant Burton would respond by saying things such as, "Oh girl." Plaintiff also observed defendant Burton rubbing the shoulders of and placing his arm around other female employees. Heilindmil-Aero was founded in 2012. The Company manufactures electronic connectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 Facsimile: (856) 727 9797 HUNG GAY: Recalls Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Due to Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10533 Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd. is recalling Bingquan brand and Soyspring brand soy drinks from the marketplace because they may contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. 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 --- ----- ------ ---------- Bingquan Ladies' 360 g All codes where 6 901432 031287 Soya milk is not Drink declared on the label Soyspring No Added Sucrose Soya Drink (Powder) 200 g All codes where 6 901432 031119 milk is not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/6qWsuJ HUNG GAY: Updates Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Recall ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10543 The food recall warning issued on April 14, 2016, has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd. is recalling Soyspring brand Ladies' Soybean Drink from the marketplace because it may contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by CFIA inspection activities. 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 --- ----- ------ ---------- Soyspring Ladies' 400g All codes where 6 901432 031287 Soya milk is not Drink declared on the label INTERCEPT PHARMA: Settles Securities Class Action for $55MM ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 2, 2016, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or the "Company") reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to seek Court approval of a proposed resolution of class action litigation pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, styled In re: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, claimed that Intercept and certain of its officers made material misrepresentations and/or omissions in Intercept's disclosures regarding the early stopping of the Phase 2b FLINT trial of obeticholic acid in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH. The lawsuit was filed by stockholders claiming to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired Intercept common stock between January 9 and January 10, 2014. The lead plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The proposed settlement contemplates payment of $55 million, of which $10 million will be funded by the Company's insurers. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit any liability. The defendants also continue to deny all allegations against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit. It is anticipated that the settlement will not have a material impact on Intercept's business. Following preliminary approval of the settlement, a notice will be sent to class member with information regarding the terms of the settlement, the plan for allocation and distribution of the settlement funds, and claim procedures. It is anticipated that the process will take several months. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Defective Drug, Risperdal ------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Saice, and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., aka Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California company of unknown formation; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., a California company of unknown formation; Johnson & Johnson Pharamceutical Research & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California company of unknown formation; Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC618156 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages, general damages, and punitive and exemplary damages, as a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful marketing and promotion of the defective and unreasonably dangerous Drug, Risperdal (TM), which was taken by Mr. Saice to treat his adolescent bi-polar syndrome in or about 2012 and 2013. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was prescribed the defective and dangerous drug, Risperdal (TM), which is also known by the generic name Risperdone. As a result of taking the Drug, Mr. Saice developed gynecomastia, or male breasts. The defendant also developed tardif dyskenisia as a result of taking the drug. Mr. Defendant stopped taking the Drug in or about 2013, but has continued to experience deleterious side effects, including, but not limited to, gynecomastia, delayed onset of puberty, delayed and/or incomplete sexual development, impaired motor skills, dyssomnia, enuresis, and other physical health issues and emotional disturbances. Risperdal (TM) is an antipsychotic medicine. The drug is used to treat schizophrenia and symptoms of bipolar disorder (manic depression). Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company of Johnson & Johnson, provides medicines for an array of health concerns in several therapeutic areas, including: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), general medicine (acid reflux disease, infectious diseases), mental health (bipolar I disorder, schizophrenia), neurologics (Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, migraine prevention and treatment), pain management, and women's health. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy V. Milner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY V. MILNER 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 805 LosAngeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 382 1195 Facsimile: (213) 351 1049 KIA: Recalls V8 Elite 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 18, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 45 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016166TC ID number: 2016166 Manufacturer recall number: RC099 On certain V8 Elite model vehicles equipped with LED headlamps, the use of the auto headlights mode may result in an increased electrical resistance of the contact points in the multi-function switch. Over time, this could cause the headlights to flicker and/or intermittently turn off while driving. An interruption in headlight function could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the multi-function switch with a switch containing redesigned contacts. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- KIA 2015 KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Class Suit in Israel ------------------------------------------------------------- Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and its directors are defending against a purported class action lawsuit filed before the Tel Aviv District Court. The Company said, "On December 3, 2015, we announced that we received a lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006 (Motion) which was filed against us and our directors at the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The Motion is with respect to asserted claims for damages to the holders of our securities listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, arising due to our initial public offering of our securities in the U.S. during November 2015. In the Motion it was claimed that the class the petitioners are seeking to represent, namely, anyone holding our shares at the start of trading on November 22, 2015 exclusive of the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof and excluding anyone whose rights to our shares derive from ADS certificates issued in the U.S to such extent as derived therefrom; and any holders of our Series 2 TASE listed warrants as of the start of trading on November 22, 2015, exclusive of the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof (Purported Class)." "The total amount claimed from all defendants, if the Motion is certified as a class action, as set forth in the motion is approximately NIS 16.4 million. In addition to this amount, the petitioners in the motion are seeking remedies in order to redress discrimination against the Purported Class owing to the dilution caused by the public offering, including the possibility that the Purported Class should be awarded from the Company amounts reflecting the losses of the Purported Class from a possible price increase in the shares of the Company following the announcement of the Phase III clinical trial results. "Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court. Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of the class action lawsuit. "We announced that we reject the claims asserted in the Motion and plan on delivering our response to the court in accordance with applicable law. "We have been advised by our attorneys that the likelihood of the Company not incurring any financial obligation as a result of the class action exceeds the likelihood that the Company will incur a financial obligation. At this preliminary stage however, we are unable, with any degree of certainty, to make any other evaluations or any other assessments with respect to the Motion's probability of success or the scope of potential exposure, if any." KLX INC: Securities Class Action Filed in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ KLX Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that a putative class action complaint was filed on January 6, 2016, against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Company said, "The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from March 9, 2015 to November 11, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The complaint principally alleges that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements regarding the value of the identifiable intangible assets and goodwill associated with ESG prior to the impairment of such assets during the third quarter of 2015. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees. We believe the claims are without merit and intend vigorously to defend ourselves against them, including by promptly seeking dismissal of the complaint." MAJOR LEAGUE: Still Face Legal Threat Despite Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Brooks Hodge, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that although a settlement this year between Major League Baseball and its fans avoided a trial, an antitrust expert for the plaintiffs says MLB remains vulnerable to future legal challenges. The two fundamental grievances underlying the class action lawsuit against MLB, Comcast and a variety of sports clubs were not resolved by the settlement reached in January, Stanford University professor Roger Noll told Legal News Line. "There were two really big issues. They were the ability to gain access to a single out-of-market game -- because fans are more interested in following one particular team, not having access to 30 teams -- and the status of the league's antitrust exemption," Mr. Noll said. Disputes over broadcasting baseball games precede television, dating back to the birth of radio. Baseball owners have historically implemented regional blackout policies, contending that broadcasting games diminish attendance. In a 1921 case over labor market rules, not broadcasting blackouts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled baseball was not interstate commerce. Instead, the games were determined to be exhibitions exempt from antitrust laws. Since then, various sports clubs have sued their respective leagues on antitrust grounds. The New York Rangers sued the National Hockey League. The Chicago Bulls sued the National Basketball Association. However, those challenges were settled before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 2012 complaint against MLB, the fans' attorneys argued that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed lower court decisions that sports leagues are subject to antitrust laws and that league owners must refrain from agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. "The hallmark of an unreasonable restraint is one that raises price, lowers output, or renders output unresponsive to consumer preference," the complaint said, adding, "The distribution of video presentations of baseball games is subject to the antitrust laws." Nevertheless, MLB and teams in the league assign exclusive territory to each team and its television partners for the live-game video market. In exchange for being granted protections against competition in its home market, the team and its partners agree not to compete in the other teams' exclusive territories. "The only way consumers can watch video presentations of other teams is through one of two exclusive 'out-of-market' packages: 'MLB.TV,' which is available through the Internet, or 'MLB Extra Innings,' a product similar to MLB.TV, which the League offers through cable and satellite providers," the complaint said. For either package, in-market games are blacked out to protect the local television partner. Consequently, a New York Mets fan living in New York is not able to watch the Mets play through either the Internet or television package. The fan must subscribe to a cable package that includes the channels that carry Mets' games. In May 2015, those challenging the league's policies were granted class action status for injunctive relief, but not damages. The settlement was reached about six months later, on Jan. 18. "Had they been granted class action status for damages, the case probably would have been settled in a couple of days. By not certifying damages for the class action, the probability of a settlement went down because the Major League Baseball had much less to lose," Mr. Noll said. As part of the settlement, MLB agreed to reduce prices through the 2020 season and provide several new products. Comcast and DirecTV also agreed to reduce prices for the 2016 and 2017 seasons. However the plaintiffs will not be compensated for what they already have paid. According to Mr. Noll, the settlement enables MLB to continue claiming an antitrust exemption. The emergence of other distribution channels also creates potential reasons for litigation. For example only cable subscribers can access MLB.com on cell phones. "Some grey areas still remain, and it seems to me more class actions could arise depending on Major League Baseball's policy on restricting access," Mr. Noll said. Mr. Noll, who serves as director of the Program in Regulatory Policy at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, has written 14 books on such topics as the economics of the sports and entertainment industry. He testified on behalf of the disgruntled fans during the class action phase of the proceedings. MATCH GROUP: Defending Against Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative nationwide class action was filed on February 26, 2016, in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in November 2015. See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering were materially false and misleading given their failure to state that: (i) the Company's Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely disclose material information caused the Company's stock price to drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint pleads claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in, or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement, the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's alleged violations. The complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees. On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different named plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. Settlement Proceeds -------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has received settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million during fiscal 2016 in the Cathode Ray Tube Action. The Company said, "On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007. No trial date has been set. "In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million during fiscal 2016. We will continue to litigate against the remaining defendants and expect that further settlement discussions will occur as this matter proceeds." MICHAEL ANGELO'S: Recalls Vegetable Lasagna Products ---------------------------------------------------- Michael Angelo's Gourmet Foods, Inc., an Austin, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 1,575 pounds of vegetable lasagna products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product may contain turkey, as well as eggs, a known allergen, which are not declared on the product label. The frozen lasagna items were produced on Feb. 12, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: 10-oz. boxes containing plastic trays labeled "Michael Angelo's Vegetable Lasagna" with a packaging date of Feb. 12, 2016. Due to a packaging error, the 10-oz. cartons are labeled as "Michael Angelo's Vegetable Lasagna," however, the packages contain a turkey lasagna product, which contains eggs. The products subject to recall do not bear the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to a distributor in Indiana. The problem was discovered after the firm received complaints from customers. 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. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the firm's consumer hotline, at 1 (877) 482-5426. Media with questions about the recall can contact Richard Price, Vice President of Operations, at (512) 218-3514. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem MICHAELS COMPANIES: Background Checks Suits vs. MSI Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends to defend remaining lawsuits against Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI"), related to Fair Credit Reporting Claim. On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former associate. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks. Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the Superior Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged violations of California's unfair competition law. The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits have been dismissed and an offer of judgment has been accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will be dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District of New Jersey. The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously. "We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said. MICHAELS COMPANIES: Dismissal of Data Breach Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that a Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2016, from the judgment in a class action lawsuit related to a data security incident. Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to the January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs generally alleged that MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached an implied contract, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The cases, are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July 14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted. On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI related to the data breach in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on December 28, 2015, and judgment was entered in favor of the Company on January 8, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2016, appealing that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. "We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuit, if any," the Company said. MINILAND EDUCATIONAL: Recalls Moogy Toys Due to Choking Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2016 Posting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57902 This recall involves the Moogy Fastening Toy. The recalled product is a plush toy advertised for children from 12 to 36 months. The toy has zippers, buttons, buckles and laces. The Moogy toy has a blue and green face, red ears, a blue jacket with a red zipper, pink/red striped pants and pink and orange shoes with polka dots. Moogy measures about 18 1/2 inches tall. "Miniland," item number R.96295 and lot number 0115 1402813 085 are printed on a white tag sewn into the toy's pants. The red button located on the Moogy's left pocket may detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Miniland Educational Corporation have received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. Miniland Educational Corporation has received one report of the button detaching in the United States, with no reported injuries. Approximately 100 units of the recalled Moogy Fastening Toy were sold in Canada, and approximately 2000 were sold in the United States. The Moogy Fastening Toy was sold in Canada from November 2015 to February 2016 at various toy stores and online. In the United States, the affected product was sold from July 2015 to February 2016. Manufactured in India. Distributor: Miniland Educational Corporation Miami Florida UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately take the recalled Moogy Fastening Toy away from children, cut off and throw away the button on the left pocket and contact Miniland Educational Corporation to arrange for a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact Miniland Educational Corporation toll free at 1-866-201-9069 from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 pm. ET Monday through Friday or through the firm's website and click on "Products", then on "Safety Information" in the dropdown menu. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/x9wHu3 NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Sue Lawyers Over Concussion Case Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that former professional football players involved in the NFL concussion litigation have sued their former attorneys in federal court over liens placed or intended to be placed on the players' individual cuts of the league's $1 billion settlement. In their complaint, the seven plaintiffs -- Gale Sayers, Lem Barney, Thomas Skladany, Thomas Vaughn, Jerry Rush, Kenneth Callicutt and Eric Hipple -- asked the court to declare that the law firms formerly representing them in the concussion litigation are not entitled to liens on the players' recovery. Messrs. Sayers and Barney are members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The firms sued are Hausfeld; Zimmerman Reed; Locks Law Firm; Bondurant Mixson & Elmore; and Pope McGlamry. The players allege that they terminated their respective firms' handling of their individual cases over dissatisfaction with the representation they received. "Defendant law firms' efforts on plaintiffs' cases have been expended exclusively in furtherance of the NFL concussion class action litigation for which some of defendant law firms will be richly compensated," the complaint said. "But, based on information and belief, defendant law firms have made no substantive efforts in furtherance of plaintiffs' individual monetary award claims under the settlement agreement, which is why plaintiffs terminated the relationships with the defendant firms." Michael Leh, managing partner of Locks Law Firm, said in a statement, "Locks Law Firm had not asserted an attorneys' lien against the former player in this complaint who we represented; although we did do work on the case we would never assert a claim for fees that was not justified." "No law firm represents more individual former players in this litigation than we do," he continued, "and no other firm has spent more time, effort and money than Locks Law Firm in order to obtain the maximum award possible for each of our individual clients both under the terms of the settlement agreement and through every other available avenue." The other firms did not return calls seeking comment. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Locks, which represented Mr. Skladany, has not filed a lien, but could; Hausfeld, which represented Messrs. Barney and Sayers, has threatened liens against their proceeds; Zimmerman Reed, which represented Vaughn and Rush, threatened liens against their proceeds; Bondurant Mixson, which represented Callicutt, filed a lien against his proceeds; and Pope McGlamry, which represented Hipple, filed a lien against his proceeds. The players said in their complaint that the firm Cummings, McClorey, Davis, & Acho currently represents them in the concussion litigation, and is entitled to the fee recovery because of its work in hiring neurologists and experts, reviewing medical records, and preparing documents. Arthur Goldman, the Paoli-based attorney who filed the plaintiffs' case, said the Cummings firm would soon enter its appearance in the players' suit against their former representation. Beyond that, he said he preferred to "let the pleadings speak for themselves and let the process play out." Recently, objectors to the NFL's $1 billion settlement petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reconsider its decision to uphold the settlement by holding en banc argument. Earlier in April the appeals court -- over the objections of dozens of former NFL players -- affirmed a lower court holding that the settlement was adequate compensation for players suffering from an array of brain injuries, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. NATERA INC: Faces 2 Class Actions in California State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two purported class action lawsuits were filed on February 17, 2016 and March 10, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, against Natera, the Company's directors and certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of our July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company said, "The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for our IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about our business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs." "We intend to defend the matter vigorously. We are still in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaints and cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigations, we are unable to predict the outcome and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome." NATURE'S TOUCH: Recalls Organic Berry Cherry Blend -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Nature's Touch Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10532 Nature's Touch is recalling Nature's Touch brand Organic Berry Cherry Blend from the marketplace due to possible Hepatitis A contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold exclusively at Costco warehouse locations in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. 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 Hepatitis A virus may not look or smell spoiled. Consumption of food contaminated with this virus may cause hepatitis and produce a self-limited disease that does not result in chronic infection or chronic liver disease. The illness is usually mild and starts about 15 to 50 days after the contaminated food is eaten. It generally goes away by itself in a week or two, although it can last up to 6 months in some people. It can cause inflammation of the liver, and symptoms may include fever, low appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle aches, and yellowing in the whites of the eyes and the skin (jaundice). If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommends contacting your doctor. There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by findings of the CFIA during the investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak. 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 --- ----- ------ ---------- Nature's Organic 1.5 kg Best Before 8 73668 00179 1 Touch Berry (3.3 lb) dates up to Cherry and including Blend 2018 MR 15 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/hvUa3b NEC TOKIN: Settles Antitrust Class Actions for $37.25 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- KEMET Corporation, a global supplier of electronic components, on May 3 disclosed that NEC TOKIN Corporation, a joint venture between KEMET Electronics Corporation and NEC Corporation, reached a preliminary settlement with plaintiffs in two related U.S. antitrust class action suits. "A significant hurdle to our acquisition of NEC TOKIN has been cleared," stated Per Loof, KEMET's Chief Executive Officer. "This settlement helps to open a path for implementation of our plan to complete the acquisition. We have been working closely with NEC Corporation to develop the strategy for the consummation of the acquisition and hope to be able to communicate to the investment community in a reasonable time frame the mechanics and timing of the closing of the acquisition. This agreement as well as the governmental fines assessed to NEC TOKIN, to date the most significant of which permit payments over time, will allow us to continue to follow our business strategies upon combination. While we still await some government jurisdictions to complete their review and assess any potential liability, our target is to complete a transaction later this calendar year. We believe that the transaction will benefit the ongoing businesses of KEMET and NEC TOKIN, providing increased shareholder value well into the future," continued Loof. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement that has been reached in principle, in consideration of its release from the class action suits, NEC TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.25 million to a settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors. Payments shall be made in installments, with the initial installment due 15 days after execution of the definitive settlement agreement, and annual installments extending through December, 2019. NEC TOKIN and the plaintiffs are working to finalize the settlement in a definitive settlement agreement, the terms of which are subject to court approval. NEC TOKIN, a Japanese corporation, is a joint venture in which KEMET's wholly-owned subsidiary, KEMET Electronics Corporation, owns a 34% equity interest and 51% voting ownership interest, and NEC Corporation (together with a subsidiary thereof) owns a 66% equity interest and 49% voting ownership interest. NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 159 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016164TC ID number: 2016164 Manufacturer recall number: R16-005 On certain buses, the software for the Electric Transit Operator (ETO) control module which controls the rear passenger exit door may contain an error. This could result in a higher than required output torque from the ETO control module when the door is in a fully open position, which over time may result in a fracture of the rear door roller plate. If the roller plate fails there is a potential for the rear door to open inadvertently while the bus is in motion, which would increase the risk for injury to vehicle occupants, and/or result in damage to property. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the ETO control module, and replace both rear door roller plates with more robust versions. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NEW FLYER XD40 2013 NEW FLYER XDE60 2015 NEW FLYER XN40 2014 NEW FLYER XD60 2013 NIKE: Assistant Store Managers' Unpaid OT Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- A California federal Judge ruled a lawsuit brought on behalf of Assistant Store Managers working for Nike Retail Services cannot proceed as a class action. The Assistant Store Manager overtime lawsuit against Nike, Case No. 14-cv-04781-RS is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The class action lawsuit was originally filed by the San Francisco Employment Law Lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik in November of 2013, alleging that Nike misclassified their Assistant Store Managers as exempt from overtime pay and as a result, allegedly, did not pay these employees overtime wages, failed to provide the legally mandated meal and rest breaks, and accurate wage statements as required by California law. In the original Complaint, the Plaintiff claimed that she spent the majority of her work shifts engaging in non-exempt tasks. As a result, the Complaint claimed that Assistant Store Managers working at Nike retail stores in California should have been entitled to overtime pay, among other things. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik dedicates its practice to contingency fee employment law work for issues involving misclassification as a salaried worker exempt from overtime, failure to pay vacation wages, misclassification as an independent contractor, off-the-clock work, wrongful termination, discrimination and other California labor laws. NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 15, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 46492 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016165TC ID number: 2016165 On certain vehicles, the anti-corrosion treatment of the outer tube of the rear lift gate stay may be insufficient. Over time, the outer tube of the rear lift gate stay may corrode and break off, which could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace both rear door stays. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NISSAN ROGUE 2014 OPOWER INC: Class Action Mulled Over Oracle Merger Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are investigating the proposed acquisition of Opower, Inc. by Oracle Corporation. On May 2, 2016, the two companies announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Oracle will acquire Opower. Under the terms of the agreement, Opower shareholders will receive $10.30 in cash for each share of Opower common stock. Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for Opower and Its Shareholders? Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of directors at Opower is undertaking a fair process to obtain maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders. As an initial matter, the $10.30 merger consideration represents a premium of only 30.4% based on Opower's closing price on April 29, 2016. This premium is below the average one day premium of 37.6% for comparable transactions within the past five years. Further, the $10.30 merger consideration is below the target price of $11.50 set by an analyst at Cowen on March 1, 2016. In the last three years, Opower traded as high as $26.00 on April 4, 2014, and most recently traded above the merger consideration -- at $10.41 -- on January 6, 2016. On February 29, 2016, Opower reported strong earnings results for its fourth quarter and full year 2015. Total revenue for the fourth quarter of 2015 was $40.5 million, an increase of 16% from the comparable period in 2014. Large, long-term contracts signed in 2015 increased Opower's backlog to $480 million as of the end of 2015, nearly double what it was at the end of 2014. Opower also successfully launched a series of new products including NextWeb and Bill Advisor; and completed the rollout of its software platform. Opower beat consensus analyst estimates for revenue and adjusted net income in last four quarters. In commenting on these results, Opower Chief Executive Officer Dan Yates remarked, "2015 was a strong year for Opower. We renewed and expanded contracts with our three largest clients -- Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), National Grid, and Exelon -- and added significant new clients including Con Edison in New York and a major European utility, each of which signed in Q4. We're seeing great traction with our Customer Care offerings -- Digital Engagement and Bill Advisor. We now have an expanded product set that qualifies us to address an even wider variety of utility challenges." In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining Opower's board of directors' decision to sell the company now rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in the company's continued success and future growth prospects. Opower shareholders have the option to file a class action lawsuit to ensure the board of directors obtains the best possible price for shareholders and the disclosure of material information. Opower shareholders interested in information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder information form on the firm's websiteOP. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a securities litigation and shareholder rights law firm. The law firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. ORBITAL SCIENCES: To Pay $165,000 in Fees and Expenses ------------------------------------------------------ Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, that in the Orbital Sciences Merger Litigation, the parties have agreed that Orbital ATK will pay fees and expenses of $165,000 within 40 days of the entry of an order closing the underlying litigation. In May 2014, several shareholders of Orbital Sciences Corporation ("Orbital") filed class actions, since consolidated into one class action, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court of Chancery") against Orbital's chief executive officer and board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Orbital ATK, Inc. (formerly Alliant Techsystems, Inc.) ("Orbital ATK") and Orbital were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derived from the execution of that certain Transaction Agreement, dated April 28, 2014, by and among Orbital ATK, Vista Outdoor Inc. (formerly Vista Spinco Inc.), Vista Merger Sub Inc. and Orbital, which was alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for shares of Orbital common stock. The class action, among other things, sought to enjoin the merger, seek additional disclosure of facts relating to the merger in connection with the stockholder vote thereupon, obtain higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages. On January 16, 2015, as part of a tentative settlement of the class actions, Orbital filed a supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus to provide supplemental disclosures addressing the plaintiffs' claims. These supplemental disclosures pertained to the Orbital board of directors' financial advisor's fairness opinion and Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the background of the merger and alternatives to the merger that were considered by the Orbital board of directors. On February 2, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing the stockholder actions with prejudice as to all named plaintiffs, and without prejudice as to any absent members of the putative class. Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Plaintiffs' counsel in the stockholder actions expressed their intention to petition the Court of Chancery for fees and reimbursement of expenses in view of the supplemental disclosures in the January 16, 2015 Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs' counsel in the class actions filed their opening brief in support of an award of $250,000 in fees and expenses. After negotiations, the parties have agreed that Orbital ATK will pay fees and expenses of $165,000 within 40 days of the entry of an order closing the underlying litigation. This fee has not been in any way approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery. PULASKI FINANCIAL: Missouri Court Dismissed "Patel" Case -------------------------------------------------------- Pulaski Financial Corp., in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, announced that the Court dismissed the putative class action lawsuit captioned Patel v. Douglass, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 16SL-CC00406 (the "Patel Case") against the Company's board of directors, the Company and First Busey Corporation ("First Busey"), related to the merger of Pulaski with and into First Busey (the "Merger"). The Court, ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss, held that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy to challenge the Merger is to exercise his dissenter's right to obtain a judicial appraisal and fair value for his shares of Company stock. In addition, the Circuit Court found that the Board's decision to approve the Merger was fully protected by the business judgment rule and that the plaintiff failed to allege any specific facts showing fraud, illegality or an irrational business judgment. The other putative class action lawsuit related to the Merger, captioned Daub v. Douglass, et al., filed in the Circuit Court, Case No. 16SL-CC00582 (the "Daub Case") against the same defendants, has been consolidated with the Patel Case. However, the Daub Case remains pending. The Company currently expects that the defendants will seek dismissal of the Daub Case on similar grounds. PIERCE: Recalls Enforcer and Saber 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016173TC ID number: 2016173 Certain vehicles may have improperly installed heater core hose clamps which could allow engine coolant to leak into the passenger compartment and come in contact with electrical components. This could result in an electrical short, causing the vehicle to lose power and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Hot coolant could also come in contact with the occupants of the vehicle and cause burn injuries. Correction: Dealers will inspect and reinstall the hose clamps properly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- PIERCE ENFORCER 2014 PIERCE SABER 2014 POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015 Models Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: A.T.V. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 1386 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016168TC ID number: 2016168 Manufacturer recall number: Z-16-01-B On certain side-by-side UTV's, the engine may misfire and cause unburned fuel to be routed into the exhaust system. This could result in excessive exhaust heat that may pose a fire hazard which could cause injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will update the ECU with software that includes misfire detection. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- POLARIS 2015 POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015, 2016 Models --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: A.T.V. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 8832 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016170TC ID number: 2016170 Manufacturer recall number: Z-16-01-D Certain side-by-side UTVs may have been assembled with heat shields that do not meet the manufacturer's standards. This could result in the cab or cargo box overheating which may pose a fire hazard causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the heat shields which will provide additional protection, and improved protection from flammable liquid spills in the vehicle cargo box that may pose a separate fire hazard. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- POLARIS 2015, 2015, 2016 POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2014, 2015, 2016 Models --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 19, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: A.T.V. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 7765 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016167TC ID number: 2016167 Manufacturer recall number: Z-16-01-A On certain side-by-side UTVs, the fuel tank vent line could be kinked or misrouted near hot exhaust components. A kinked fuel tank vent line can cause the fuel tank to build pressure and expand. This expansion may cause the fuel tank to come into contact with the spinning prop shaft, which could lead to a fuel leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. A misrouted fuel vent line may come in contact with hot exhaust components could result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel tank vent line with a revised part and ensure proper routing and restraint. They will also inspect the fuel tank to ensure that no damage is present, and will repair as necessary. Note: This recall supersedes recall 2015-420. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will require re-inspection and repair. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- POLARIS 2015, 2014, 2015, 2016 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers is being accused of violating federal and California age discrimination laws by focusing on hiring and retaining "millennials." In a proposed class action filed on April 27 by lawyers at Outten & Golden, 53-year-old accountant Steve Rabin alleges that PwC hiring policies effectively bar applicants older than 40 from landing entry-level positions at the company. Mr. Rabin interviewed with PwC in San Jose in 2013 but was turned down, and says the company hired a younger accountant instead. He is seeking to overturn PwC's hiring policies, and demanding compensation, penalties and fees for himself and other similarly situated individuals. The proposed class is nationwide and includes individuals above the age of 40 who applied for and were denied a job at PwC, as well as people in that age bracket who were deterred from applying at all, dating back to October 2013. The complaint makes no estimate of how big that pool might be. But it notes that at the end of fiscal year 2015, PwC employed more than 53,000 people in North America and the Caribbean. "Hundreds or thousands of potential class members have applied, attempted to apply, or been interested in applying to the covered positions during the relevant time period," the suit states. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition to Outten & Golden, the suit is being supported by the AARP Foundation in Washington and The Liu Law Firm in San Francisco. Caroline Nolan, a spokeswoman for PwC, said the suit is meritless. "The claim is false. PwC's hiring practices offer equal opportunity to all applicants, and the firm devotes enormous resources to recruiting a diverse workforce," she said in an email. "Like most employers, PwC recruits at the nation's colleges and universities and the firm hires individuals at all experience levels and across the age spectrum." The complaint describes the underrepresentation of workers above age 40 at PwC as "stark." Citing the firm's own Corporate Responsibility Summary Report from 2011, it says that the average age of its workforce is 27, and that by 2016, almost 80 percent of employees will be millennials -- individuals between the ages of 21 and 36. It also says that the PwC website touts how young its workforce is. "For PwC to advertise the youthfulness of its workforce is concerning. How would we feel about a company advertising how male-dominated or white its workforce was?" Outten & Golden partner Jahan Sagafi said in an email. The skewed demographics are a direct result of PwC intentionally implementing policies and practices throughout the U.S. that are design to maintain a "youthful culture," according to the complaint. Part of the way PwC does this is by controlling the pipeline of applicants, it says. People trying to apply for junior associate and associate positions with the firm must be active university students. Other entry-level, non-management positions are posted online, but older applicants are also barred from those positions because of the company's preference for younger hires, the complaint says. Rabin applied for a "Seasonal Experienced Associate" position in October 2013 at age 50. When Mr. Rabin was interviewed, the complaint says, he was asked by a manager in his mid-30s: "The people in the cubicles are much younger than you. How would you fit in? Would you be able to work for a younger manager or director?" Mr. Rabin assured the interviewer that he had worked for a younger manager in the past and enjoyed the experience, the complaint says. He was not given a reason for why he was turned down. The complaint also takes aim at PwC's policy of forced retirement at age 60, which it says deters older applicants from applying. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: "Rabin" Sues over Age Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Rabin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02276-JST. (N.D. Cal. Super. April 27, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, back pay including interest and benefits for Plaintiff, liquidated, exemplary and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and such other and further legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and California Fair Employment and Housing Act. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is global accounting and auditing firm with offices in 157 countries. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment because of his age. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Katrina L. Eiland, Esq. Julia Rabinovich, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com keiland@outtengolden.com jrabinovich@outtengolden.com - and - Adam T. Klein, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com - and - Daniel Kohrman, Esq. Laurie McCann, Esq. Dara Smith, Esq. (pro hac vice forthcoming) AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org lmccann@aarp.org dsmith@aarp.org - and - Jennifer L. Liu, Esq. THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 1170 Market Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-4260 Facsimile: (415) 231-0011 E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com PROSKAUER ROSE: Faces New Class Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Triedman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that two months after a federal appeals court rejected their case, investors who lost billions in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by R. Allen Stanford have filed a brand-new class action against the company's former outside counsel at Proskauer Rose. The move comes as Chadbourne & Parke, which also once counted Antigua-based Stanford Group as a client, has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve parallel investor claims. (The settlement was first reported in February, but the size of the deal was not known.) If the settlement is approved, the funds, minus a contingency fee, will be distributed among investors who bought bogus Stanford CDs. The new case against Proskauer, meanwhile, landed on April 29 in federal district court in Dallas, claiming $5 billion in damages. Once again, the plaintiffs are looking to hold Proskauer responsible for the actions of its former partner, Thomas Sjoblom, who allegedly helped Stanford conceal his Ponzi scheme from regulators. Mr. Sjoblom, who joined Proskauer from Chadbourne in 2006 and represented Stanford's company while at both firms, is also named as a defendant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the original case against Proskauer on March 10, following six years of litigation and two trips through the appeals courts. The panel found that, under Texas law, an attorney is shielded from liability if the alleged wrongdoing occurred while he was defending a client. But according to the April 29 complaint, the Fifth Circuit's decision also left open a narrow window for the plaintiffs to sue again under Texas' Securities Act. Their 99-page complaint, filed by Edward Snyder of San Antonio-based Castillo Snyder and co- counsel Strasburger Price on behalf of a putative class of 21,000 Stanford investors, hopes to take advantage of that window. The suit features two new named plaintiffs, Sandra Dorrell and Phillip Wilkinson, who lost big on their Stanford investments. They allege that Mr. Sjoblom, pictured right, and his firm aren't protected under the Texas law because their alleged wrongdoing didn't really involve litigation, and was criminal in nature. "Sjoblom's and Proskauer's conduct was not undertaken in a litigation context in that (and as noted by the distinction made in Proskauer's own engagement letter) an SEC investigation does not constitute litigation," the complaint asserts. Given that Mr. Sjoblom wasn't then shielded, the plaintiffs assert, the firm is no longer immune under the crime exception, but is liable for aiding Stanford in its fraudulent scheme, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, mail fraud and other claims. Adding possible additional firepower to the complaint is a decision on March 24 by three SEC commissioners expanding on an administrative judge's finding of liability against Stanford Group's chief compliance officer, Bernerd Young. Mr. Young, who worked closely with Mr. Sjoblom, was ordered to pay roughly $1 million in disgorgement and other penalties. He was also barred from working in the securities industry. According to the plaintiffs, the SEC's decision supports their position that Mr. Sjoblom participated in and aided Stanford's fraud by preventing anyone -- ranging from the SEC to Stanford's own brokers and compliance officers -- from gaining access to the offshore bank's investment portfolio information. Davis Polk & Wardwell's James Rouhandeh -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- who represented Proskauer in the earlier case, was not immediately available to comment; Snyder would not comment publicly. The Proskauer case is just part of a global effort to recover assets lost in the Stanford fraud. Via the court-appointed Stanford Investors Committee, investors are pursuing claims against other former Stanford outside counsel, including Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams. They have sued a group of banks, including TD Bank, HSBC, Societe Generale and two Texas banks, Bank of Houston and Trustmark, that processed billions of dollars in sham transactions. They are also pressing claims against Stanford's onetime clearing broker, Pershing LLC. Over the past six months, the committee has recovered $219 million via settlements with other outside advisers. Chadbourne & Parke agreed to its $35 million deal just 10 days before the Fifth Circuit ruled for the firms in March. The investors also reached a $40 million approved settlement with former Stanford auditor BDO Seidman; a $24 million settlement with consultant Kroll LLC awaiting court approval; and a pending $120 million settlement with Willis Group Plc, Stanford's insurance broker. PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $5.9MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Prosper Marketplace, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's reserve related to the class action settlement liability is $5.9 million. On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against PMI and certain of its executive officers and directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California (the "Superior Court"). The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The lawsuit alleged that PMI offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal securities laws. The lawsuit sought rescission damages against PMI and the other named defendants, as well as treble damages against PMI and the award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On July 19, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action litigation pending before the Superior Court, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (the "Settlement") setting forth an agreement to settle all claims related thereto. In connection with the Settlement, PMI agreed to pay the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of $10 million, payable in four lump sum payments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. On April 16, 2014, the Superior Court granted final approval of the Settlement. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the Settlement, the defendants will be released by the plaintiffs from all claims concerning or arising out of the offering of promissory notes on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. ROYAL BANCSHARES: Settlement in NJ Taxpayers Suit Awaits Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement reached in the consolidated master class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Court") on behalf of a proposed class of taxpayers remains subject to Court approval after notice and a hearing. Prior to December 31, 2013, Royal Bank held a 60% equity interest in each of Crusader Servicing Corporation ("CSC") and Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC ("RTL"). CSC and RTL acquired, through public auction, delinquent tax liens in various jurisdictions thereby assuming a superior lien position to most other lien holders, including mortgage lien holders. In 2012, the former President of CSC and RTL, CSC, RTL and the Company were named defendants, among others, in a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Court") on behalf of a proposed class of taxpayers who became delinquent in paying their municipal tax obligations. The Complaint alleged a conspiracy to rig bids in municipal tax lien auctions. During 2013, the Company, Royal Bank, CSC, and RTL reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $1.65 million and other terms and conditions, including an opportunity for members of the proposed settlement class whose tax liens are currently held by CSC or RTL to redeem those liens for a one-time cash payment equaling 85% of the redemption amount by making such payment within 35 days of the date of written notice. The proposed settlement class does not include, and therefore the offer to redeem does not apply to, tax liens acquired at 0% interest or at a premium. The settlement is subject to Court approval after notice and a hearing. Members of the proposed settlement class will have an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement or opt-out. ROYAL BANK: Still Defends MBS Class Actions ------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that: 1. the RBS companies are defendants in a purported MBS class action entitled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al., which remains pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 2. Another MBS class action (Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al. and related class action cases) was settled in 2013 without any contribution from RBS, but several members of the settlement class are appealing the court-approved settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ROYAL BANK: Deal in ISDAFIX Suit Subject to Final Documentation --------------------------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement in the ISDAFIX antitrust litigation remains subject to final documentation and court approval. Beginning in September 2014, RBS plc and a number of other financial institutions were named as defendants in several purported class action complaints (now consolidated into one complaint) pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) alleging manipulation of USD ISDAFIX rates. RBS has reached an agreement to settle this matter, subject to final settlement documentation and court approval. The settlement amount is covered by an existing provision. ROYAL BANK: Settlement in CDS Action Paid in Escrow --------------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement in the credit default swap antitrust litigation has been paid into escrow pending final court approval. Certain members of the Group, as well as a number of other financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging an unlawful restraint of trade in the market for credit default swaps. The RBS defendants have reached an agreement to settle this matter for US$33 million, and that settlement received preliminary approval from the Court on 29 October 2015. The settlement amount has been paid into escrow pending final court approval of the settlement. ROYAL BANK: Paid $255 Million Settlement in Escrow -------------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has paid $255 million into escrow pending final court approval of the settlement in the FX antitrust litigation. Group companies have settled all claims that are or could be asserted on behalf of the classes in a consolidated action alleging an antitrust conspiracy in relation to foreign exchange transactions, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement on 15 December 2015, RBS paid the total settlement amount (US$255 million) into escrow pending final court approval of the settlement. Other class action complaints, including a complaint asserting Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims on behalf of employee benefit plans that engaged in FX transactions, are pending in the same court and name certain members of the Group as defendants. ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action in Ontario and Quebec ---------------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to face two class action lawsuits in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In September 2015, certain members of the Group, as well as a number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants in two purported class actions filed in Ontario and Quebec on behalf of persons in Canada who entered into foreign exchange transactions or who invested in funds that entered into foreign exchange transactions. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to manipulate the prices of currency trades. RUBY TUESDAY: June 28 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. ("Ruby Tuesday" or the "Company") between July 24, 2015 and April 7, 2016. You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ruby Tuesday securities between July 24, 2015 and April 7, 2016, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra/ruby-tuesday The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Ruby Tuesday's fiscal year 2016 guidance was unobtainable and unrealistic; (b) promotional activity by its peers was adversely impacting the Company's performance; (c) the continuing decline in casual dining customers and traffic adversely impacted Ruby Tuesday's performance; and (d) as a result of the aforementioned, defendants' statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in Ruby Tuesday you have until June 28, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/pslra/ruby-tuesday Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. SABINE OIL: Stourbridge Case Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------- Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as a result of the Company's pending bankruptcy, the case, Stourbridge Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., is currently stayed. Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014. On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC). The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are alleged against that entity. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as would have been required under the original transaction structure. The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices" that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential transactions with other bidders. The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law, and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved. In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409- MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May 29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits improperly received by defendants. On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to reopening on good cause shown. On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date. The settlement, if consummated, would also resolve the Colorado action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form 8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at least one additional independent director, as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required to be independent. In connection with the closing of the Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual, was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to replace an independent director who resigned from the board of directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of directors to eight) in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision. Plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties' reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are presently negotiating. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith, including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions. There can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of settlement. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure. On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed. SE3 LLC: "Gooden" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------- Nicole Gooden, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SE3, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 04688 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2016), seeks an injunction against the Defendant, damages for overtime compensation due, liquidated or penalty damages, costs and expenses including reasonable attorney fees and expert fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and all such other and further legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. SE3, LLC is a civil engineering contractor for transportation and municipal engineering. It is a Missouri limited liability company with operations in Downers Grove, Illinois where Gooden was employed as a Contract Administrator. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC 10601 Mission Road, Suite 100 Leawood, KS 66206 Tel: (913) 766-5585 Fax: (816) 875-5069 Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com - and - Kenneth C. Apicella, Esq. Drost, Gilbert, Andrew and Apicella LLC 4811 Emerson Ave., Suite 110 Palatine, IL 60067 Tel: (847) 934-6000 Fax: (847) 934-6040 Email: KCA@dgaalaw.com SIBANYE GOLD: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Sibanye Gold Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an application to certify a class action by mine workers and their dependents remains pending. On 21 August 2012, a court application was served on a group of respondents that included Sibanye (the August Respondents). On 21 December 2012, a further court application was issued and was formally served on a number of respondents, including Sibanye (the December Respondents) and, again on 10 January 2013, both the August Respondents and the December Respondents (together the Respondents), on behalf of current and former mine workers, and their dependants, of, amongst others, Sibanye, and who allegedly contracted silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases (OLD) (the Class). The court application of 21 August 2012 and 21 December 2012 are together referred to as the Applications. Sibanye filed a notice of its intention to oppose the Applications and its attorneys to defend the claims. These Applications requested that the court, 1. As a first phase, certify a class action to be instituted by the applicants on behalf of the Class, as defined. 2. As a second phase to possibly split the Class, as defined into smaller classes based on common legal and factual issues. The Respondents are of the view that the definition of the class in the first phase and the proposed process involving the second phase are contrary to South African legal precedent. 3. In the last phase, bring an action wherein they will attempt to hold the Respondents liable for silicosis and other OLD and resultant consequences. The Applications do not identify the number of claims that may be instituted against the Respondents or the quantum of damages that the applicants may seek. The Applications were heard during the weeks of 12 and 19 October 2015. Judgement is expected to be handed down in the next few months. Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye announced in November 2014 that they have formed a gold mining industry working group to address issues relating to the compensation and medical care for OLD in the gold mining industry in South Africa. Essentially, the companies are seeking a comprehensive and sustainable solution which deals both with the legacy compensation issues and future legal frameworks and which, while being fair to employees, also ensures the future sustainability of companies in the industry. The companies have engaged all stakeholders on these matters, including government, organised labour, other mining companies and legal representatives of claimants who have filed legal suits against the companies. These legal proceedings are being defended. At this stage, Sibanye can neither quantify the potential liability from the action as the Application is currently for certification of a class (and possibly, subsequent classes) nor can the length of time until finalisation be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitrator Granted Claimants' Motion for Stay -------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an Arbitrator issued an Order granting Claimants' motion for a stay of the Class Determination Award or for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations with respect to the putative class of Claimants alleging disparate treatment. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. Claimants' Motion was granted and the Arbitrator issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and companion Order Regarding Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on February 29, 2016. SJI's deadline to move the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the Conditional Certification Award and Order Regarding Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period was March 30, 2016. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Motion was denied on February 22, 2016. On December 9, 2015, SJI docketed its Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. SJI's Brief and Appendix of Appellant was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 17, 2016. In the AAA proceeding, on April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. On February 24, 2016, the Arbitrator also issued an Order granting Claimants' motion for a stay of the Class Determination Award or for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations with respect to the putative class of Claimants alleging disparate treatment. SILVER CARE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Medical Records --------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Hall, individually and as executor for the estate of Mary Ann Hall, and other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Silver Care Operations, LLC d/b/a Alaris Health at Cherry Hill (AHCH), Avery Eisenreich, Lnha Shawne Mimna, ABC Companies (l-10), DEF Partnerships (1-10), John Doe Management Company, (1-10): John Doe Physicians (1-10), Jane Doe Nurses (1-20), Jane Moe Technicians (1-10), and CNAs and Paramedical Employees, (individual and corporate fictitious named defendants), i/j/s/a, the Defendants, Case No. L-001574-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), asserts significant injuries, pain and suffering and other damages sustained, and seeks statutory attorneys' fees, treble damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit, and other damages as the Court may deem proper, as a result of Defendants' negligence to the demands of the Plaintiff including production of complete certified color copy of medical charts and nursing records, nurse's aides records, incident reports, production of policies and procedures and facility surveys, answers to form C interrogatories, and answers to supplemental interrogatories affidavit of merit. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received treatment by nurses, aides, physicians and other apparent employees of AHCH. Plaintiff was unable to select or choose any of the professionals and/or individuals who rendered treatment to her and believes they were all employees and/or agents of AHCH, and the other legal entities that own and/or manage AHCH. Silver Care is a long term skilled care facility (nursing home). The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Ringold, Esq. DANSKY KATZ RINGOLD YORK 8000 Sagemore Drive Suite 8304 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 489 1515 E-mail: www.nursinghome-legalhelp.com SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: "Long" Sues Over Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Frank Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01991-PBT (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2016), seeks statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further legal and equitable relief in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act. The complaint says Plaintiff applied as a bus driver but was denied due to his past criminal record. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation operates the sixth largest public transportation system in the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ossai Miazad, Esq. Adam T. Klein, Esq. Lewis M. Steel, Esq. Christopher M. McNerney, Esq. Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Ave 29th Fl New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 245-1000 Email: om@outtengolden.com STAR BULK: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Star Bulk Carriers Corp. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in a shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "On October 23, 2014, a purported shareholder (the "Plaintiff") of Star Bulk Carriers Corp. filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in New York state court against our Chief Executive Officer, members of our board of directors and several of our shareholders and related entities. We have been named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that our acquisition of Oceanbulk and purchase of several Excel Vessels were the result of self-dealing by various defendants and that we entered into the respective transactions on unfair terms. The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of these transactions, several defendants' interests in Star Bulk Carriers Corp. have increased and that the Plaintiff's interest in Star Bulk Carriers Corp. has been diluted. The lawsuit also alleges that our management has engaged in other conduct that has resulted in corporate waste." "The lawsuit seeks cancellation of all shares issued to the defendants in connection with our acquisition of Oceanbulk, unspecified monetary damages, the replacement of some or all members of our board of directors and of our Chief Executive Officer, and other relief. We believe the claims are completely without merit, deny them, and intend to vigorously defend against them in court." "On November 24, 2014, we and the other defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 4, 2015, we and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 18, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the matter. On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is pending." STEMCELLS INC: "Guardino" Suit Questions Fees By-Laws ----------------------------------------------------- Sydelle Guardino, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Stemcells, Inc., Eric Bjerkholt, R. Scott Greer, Ricardo Levy, Ian Massey, John Schwartz, Alan Trounson and Irving Weissman, Defendants, Case No. 12266 (Del. Ch., April 27, 2016) seeks to invalidate and rescind the "Fee Bylaws" invalid and render it void and unenforceable. The suit also seeks costs and disbursements of the action including reasonable attorney and expert fees, costs, and expenses and such other and further relief under the Delaware General Corporation Law. Plaintiff is a beneficial owner of shares of StemCells common stock. Guardino is questioning the legality of the certificate and bylaw provision requiring stockholders to pay the attorneys' fees and costs in certain derivative actions, class actions and other actions against the corporation. StemCells is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 7707 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 140, Newark, California. Eric Bjerkholt, R. Scott Greer, Ricardo Levy, Ian Massey, John Schwartz, Alan Trounson and Irving Weissman are members of the board of Directors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Robin Winchester, Esq. Kristen L. Ross, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 - and - Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 888-6500 STRATASYS LTD: Court Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- Stratasys Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Minnesota court has not rendered a decision on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the Securities Law Class Actions. On February 5, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action was commenced in the United States District Courts for the District of Minnesota, naming the Company and certain of our officers and directors as defendants. Similar actions were filed on February 9 and 20, 2015, and on March 25, 2015, in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, and the District of Minnesota, respectively. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning our business and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and awards of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On April 15, 2015, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and on April 24, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel for the putative class. On July 1, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On August 31, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court heard the motion on December 11, 2015, but has not rendered a decision. "We intend to mount vigorous defenses to these lawsuits," the Company said. SUNEDISON INC: Glenview Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Glenview Capital Partners, L.P., et al., the Plaintiff, v. SunEdison, TerraForm Global, Inc., and Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier, Alejandro Hernandez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez, Peter Blackmore, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, Steven Tesoriere, James Williams, and Randy Zwirn (Individual Defendants), and Barclays Capital Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Agricole CIB, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs, & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc., MCS Capital Markets LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Santander, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., and Societe Generale (Underwriter Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. CIV537971, was transferred from San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02264-JCS to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that between June 2015 and August 2015, SunEdison, TerraForm Global, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants issued and sold more than $2.5 billion of securities to Glenview and other investors. The Complaint alleges that, on or about June 9, 2015, Plaintiffs purchased TerraForm Global Class D Securities at a price of $1,000 per share. The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs purchased bonds in Terraform Global's July 31, 2015 Bond Offering. Complaint further alleges that Plaintiffs purchased SunEdison Preferred Stock in SunEdison's August 2015 offering of 6.75% Series A Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock (the SunEdison Preferred Offering). The Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Securities pursuant to offering documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state other material facts necessary to make the statements made in the offering documents not misleading in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. SunEdison is the largest global renewable energy development company. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Brett Hammon, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858 6000 Facsimile (650) 858 6100 E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com SUNEDISON INC: Oklahoma Firefighters' Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, the Plaintiff, v. SunEdison, Inc., TerraForm Global, Inc., and Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier, Alejandro Hernandez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez, Peter Blackmore, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, Steven Tesoriere, James Williams, and Randy Zwirn (Individual Defendants), and Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities Americas, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. (Underwriter Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. CIV537965, was removed from San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 02267-SK to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that between June 2015 and August 2015, SunEdison, Inc., TerraForm Global, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants sold more than $2.5 billion of newly issued securities to Plaintiff and other investors. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased TerraForm Global Class A common stock in TerraForm Global's initial public offering at $15 per share. The Subject Securities purchased by Plaintiff were sold using offering documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state other material facts necessary to make the statements made in the offering documents not misleading in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. SunEdison is the largest global renewable energy development company. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren Jay Robbins, Esq. David William Hall, Esq. Dennis J. Herman, Esq. James Ian Jaconette, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 E-mail: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com dhall@rgrdlaw.com dennish@rgrdlaw.com jamesj@rgrdlaw.com JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett Hammon, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858 6000 Facsimile (650) 858 6100 E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com SUNEDISON INC: Omega Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ Omega Capital Investors, L.P., et al., the Plaintiff, v. SunEdison, Inc., TerraForm Global, Inc., and Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier, Alejandro Hernandez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez, Peter Blackmore, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, Steven Tesoriere, James Williams, and Randy Zwirn, and Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc., and MCS Capital Markets, LLC (Underwriter Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. CIV537977, was transferred from San Mateo Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The Northern District Court assigned Case 3:16-cv-02268-EDL to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that between June 2015 and August 2015, SunEdison, TerraForm Global, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants sold more than $2.5 billion of newly issued securities to Plaintiffs and other investors. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs purchased, acquired and/or sold SunEdison and TerraForm Global securities including SunEdison preferred stock, TerraForm Global Class D securities and TerraForm Global common stock. The Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Securities pursuant to offering documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state other material facts necessary to make the statements made in the offering documents not misleading in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. SunEdison is the largest global renewable energy development company. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren Jay Robbins, Esq. David William Hall, Esq. Dennis J. Herman, Esq. James Ian Jaconette, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 E-mail:e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com dhall@rgrdlaw.com dennish@rgrdlaw.com jamesj@rgrdlaw.com JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett Hammon, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858 6000 Facsimile (650) 858 6100 E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com SUNLAND FOODS: "Bolton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey R. Bolton on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunland Foods, Inc., The Grillers Club LLC and Mario A. Di Marco, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00299-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., April 27, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, unpaid wages, damages resulting from fraudulent filing of returns, breach of contract and unpaid bonuses, expenses, attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Internal Revenue Code. Defendants are into the restaurant business and jointly employed the Plaintiff. Bolton was misclassified as an independent contractor thus denied the usual benefits due an employee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Melton, Esq. Jay P. Lechner, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON One Progress Plaza 200 Central Ave Ste 400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel: (727) 822-1111 Fax: (727) 898-2001 Email: pleadings@thefllawfirm.com lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com shelley@thefllawfirm.com SYNERON MEDICAL: Written Summations Submitted in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Syneron Medical Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that written summations were submitted by a class action applicant and the Company in September 2015 and February 2016, respectively. On December 31, 2013, Syneron Medical Ltd. and its subsidiary, Syneron Beauty Ltd. (which following a joint venture with Unilever Ventures is now a subsidiary of Iluminage Beauty), received a copy of a petition filed with the Central District Court in Israel to approve the filing of a class action suit against Syneron Medical Ltd. and Syneron Beauty Ltd. (the "Respondents"). The Petitioner claims that the Respondents violated article 2 of the Consumer Protection Act resulting from misleading advertising regarding the Syneron Beauty me hair removal device. The Petitioner claims to represent the class of consumers that purchased the me hair removal device and is seeking damages for the group in the amount of NIS 27.5 million. The Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter. Following evidentiary hearings, written summations were submitted by the applicant and the Company in September 2015 and February 2016, respectively. TALMER BANCORP: "Bushansky" Sues over Shady Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Talmer Bancorp, Inc., Gary Torgow, David T. Provost, Gary S. Collins, Max A. Berlin, Jennifer M. Granholm, Paul E. Hodges III, Ronald A. Klein, Barbara J. Mahone, Robert H. Naftaly, Albert W. Papa, Thomas L. Schellenberg, Arthur A. Weiss, And Chemical Financial Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 11511-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich., April 27, 2016), seeks preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger; rescissory damages, reasonable attorney and experts fees and expenses; and such other and further relief pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act. Chemical would acquire all outstanding shares of Talmer for the equivalent of $1.1 billion in stock and cash valued at $15.64 per share as of January 25, 2016. Plaintiff claim to be shortchanged as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co set a $21.00 price target for the Company, which is $5.36 above the purported merger consideration while Talmer stock traded as high as $18.48 on December 29, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that the Board agreed to lock up the deal under questionable circumstances that did not favor the Talmer shareholders. Stephen Bushansky is a shareholder of Talmer. Talmer is a Michigan corporation with its principal executive offices located at 2301 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 525, Troy, Michigan 48084. It is the holding company for Talmer Bank and Trust, a Michigan state-chartered bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with 81 banking offices in Michigan and northeastern Ohio. Chemical is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business at 333 East Main Street, Midland, Michigan 48640. Chemical Bank is a Michigan state-chartered bank operating 185 banking offices in Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Wernette, Esq. WERNETTE HEILMAN PLLC 24725 W. 12 Mile Road, Suite 110 Southfield, MI 48034 Tel: (248) 663-5170 Email: mike@wernetteheilman.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Penny Arcades Machines ------------------------------------------------------- News12 New Jersey reports that Penny Arcades, the popular coin-counting service available at TD Bank, are now the focus of a nationwide class-action lawsuit. The suit argues that coins were inaccurately counted and customers were short-changed when using the machines. The suit also argues that TD Bank officials knew or should have known about the problem. Bruce Nagel, the attorney who filed the suit, says that he estimates that thousands of people were affected by this case. He estimates that the damages will be tens of millions of dollars because the Penny Arcades process about 3 billion coins each year. TD Bank released a statement that said in part, "We have launched an enhanced testing program and all of our coin counting machines are in the process of being taken out of service and will be evaluated and retested." The Penny Arcades will be brought back into service once bank officials are satisfied with their performance requirements. TD Bank would not comment on the class-action lawsuit. TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Wertheim" Suit in D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------- Ellen S. Wertheim, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., d/b/a Lexus, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02370-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., April 27, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Madeline C. Arleo. Toyota Motor is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Herrmann COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddlebrook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845 9600 Facsimile: (201) 845 9423 E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com TRXADE GROUP: Discovery Has Not Commenced in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Trxade Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit filed by Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet commenced. On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class- action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program. Family Medicine seeks statutory damages on behalf of a class of similarly situated entities throughout the United States. The litigation is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet commenced. Although management denies any material liability and the propriety of class certification in this lawsuit, the litigation could have a lengthy duration, it is more likely than not that damages and/or settlement costs will be incurred, and the ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Another Class Action in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- Uber's legal crisis continues with a national class action filed May 1 seeking relief for hundreds of thousands of drivers nationwide. The lawsuit alleges Uber doesn't pay drivers the tips auto- collected from passengers under their rider agreement and also claims Uber illegally classifies drivers as independent contractors to avoid employee protections under federal and state laws. The case indicates the recent $100 million settlement of a CA and MA drivers' claims was just the tip of the iceberg for embattled Uber. The Lawsuit: * Filed on behalf of drivers nationwide by former Uber driver and outspoken driver advocate Lorri Trosper; * Attorney Brian Mahany is the lawyer who tagged Bank of America for the largest single defendant settlement in history at $16.65 billion; (not a spelling error) * US District (federal) Court for Northern District of Illinois. Points: * CA and MA $100 million settlement was just CA & MA drivers and as a settlement didn't resolve any employee v independent contractor issue; * Plaintiff is seeking a final ruling that states Uber drivers are employees and thus entitled to Fair Labor Standards Act and other rights and protections; and separately * Gratuity theft speaks for itself and Uber's disregard of drivers' rights. "The outcome of this case will have a profound effect on Uber and similar companies" said attorney Mahany who points out that "Uber micromanages drivers' activities minute by minute which tells us they're employees and the company can't avoid employee rights and protections simply by calling drivers,'independent contractors.'" * * * Megan Rose Dickey, writing for TechCrunch, reports that less than a month after Uber settled two class-action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts, another one has popped up. This time, the suit pertains to all current and former Uber drivers in the United States, except for those in California and Massachusetts. The suit, filed on May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Chicago division, asks the court to classify Uber divers as employees rather than independent contractors, "recover unpaid overtime wages and compensation," reimburse expenses, and pay the tips that "were earned but stolen by Uber or were lost" due to Uber's communications and policies. This nationwide case is very similar in nature to the two Uber recently settled in California and Massachusetts. In those two cases, the settlements determined that Uber drivers in those states will remain independent contractors. As TechCrunch previously noted, Uber had to offer several concessions, with the biggest being $100 million in payments to the 385,000 drivers represented across both cases. This nationwide class-action suit is in its early days, but I imagine we might see a relatively similar outcome as the ones in California and Massachusetts. It's worth noting that it took over three years for the California case to reach a settlement, but the fact that a precedent has recently been set, this case probably won't take nearly as long. "Nearly 90 percent of drivers say the main reason they use Uber is because they love being their own boss," Uber said in a statement to TechCrunch about the lawsuit. "As employees, drivers would have set shifts, earn a fixed hourly wage, and lose the ability to drive with other ridesharing apps -- as well as the personal flexibility they most value." UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bill That Would Set Fares Fails to Get Support ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that state legislation that would have pushed regulators to set rates on Uber and Lyft rides died in a Senate committee late on April 19 amid opposition from the ride-hailing companies and their trade associations. Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, could not find enough support from fellow Democrats for SB 1035, which also would have asked the Public Utilities Commission to scrutinize the industry's insurance practices, its driver background checks and its efforts to serve handicapped passengers. "On the rate regulation piece, we're going in the wrong direction," said Santa Monica Sen. Ben Allen, one of four Democrats who declined to cast a vote on the bill, effectively dooming it. "We've realized in the context of all the market changes that have happened that, if anything, we need to be loosening up rate regulation rather than the other way around." The bill's fate was in doubt from the time it was introduced earlier in April, although it seemed more likely to fail in the Assembly, where there are more so-called business-friendly Democrats than the Senate. SB 1035's early demise eliminates one of the tech industry's biggest legislative targets of the year. "I understand how much support there is for the industry by this Legislature," Sen. Hueso told the committee on April 19. "That's why I brought a bill that I thought nobody could oppose and nobody should oppose." Sen. Hueso's brothers own a taxi company in Southern California, although he said SB 1035 would do "nothing" to level the playing field between ride-hailing companies and the more highly regulated taxi industry. Lobbyists for Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. had argued that any attempt to direct the PUC to set rates would threaten their surge-pricing practices and therefore their business models. "It would be bad policy for the state of California in 2016 to explicitly tell the PUC that they can fix rates in a dynamic, competitive industry," said Robert Callahan, executive director of the Internet Association's Sacramento office. UBS GROUP: $141MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval -------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the $141 million settlement related to the foreign exchange-related civil litigation remains subject to final court approval. Putative class actions have been filed since November 2013 in US federal courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other banks on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks. They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. In 2015, additional putative class actions were filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons who entered into or held any foreign exchange futures contracts and options on foreign exchange futures contracts since 1 January 2003. The complaints assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the US antitrust laws. In July 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of both putative classes of persons covered by the US federal court class actions. UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve all of these US federal court class actions. The agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the court and is subject to final court approval, requires, among other things, that UBS pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the settlement classes. In June 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of plans qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for whom a defendant bank provided foreign currency exchange transactional services, exercised discretionary authority or discretionary control over management of such ERISA plan, or authorized or permitted the execution of any foreign currency exchange transactional services involving such plan's assets. The complaint asserts claims under ERISA. In 2015, UBS was added to putative class actions pending against other banks in federal court in New York and other jurisdictions on behalf of putative classes of persons who bought or sold physical precious metals and various precious metal products and derivatives. The complaints in these lawsuits assert claims under the antitrust laws and the CEA, and other claims. UBS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss LIBOR Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion of UBS and other defendants to dismiss LIBOR and other benchmark-related civil litigation remains pending. A number of putative class actions and other actions are pending in, or expected to be transferred to, the federal courts in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of parties who transacted in certain interest rate benchmark-based derivatives. Also pending are actions asserting losses related to various products whose interest rate was linked to USD LIBOR, including adjustable rate mortgages, preferred and debt securities, bonds pledged as collateral, loans, depository accounts, investments and other interest-bearing instruments. All of the complaints allege manipulation, through various means, of various benchmark interest rates, including USD LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, Yen LIBOR, EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR or USD ISDAFIX rates and seek unspecified compensatory and other damages under varying legal theories. In 2013, the court in the USD action dismissed the federal antitrust and racketeering claims of certain USD LIBOR plaintiffs and a portion of their claims brought under the CEA and state common law. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal, and the appeal remains pending. In 2014, the court in one of the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuits dismissed certain of the plaintiff's claims, including federal antitrust claims. In 2015, the same court dismissed plaintiff's federal racketeering claims and affirmed its previous dismissal of plaintiff's antitrust claims. UBS and other defendants in other lawsuits including those related to EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR and GBP LIBOR have filed motions to dismiss. Since September 2014, putative class actions have been filed in federal court in New York and New Jersey against UBS and other financial institutions, among others, on behalf of parties who entered into interest rate derivative transactions linked to ISDAFIX. The complaints, which have since been consolidated into an amended complaint, allege that the defendants conspired to manipulate ISDAFIX rates from 1 January 2006 through January 2014, in violation of US antitrust laws and the CEA, among other theories, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including treble damages. UBS and other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Key Aspects Not Yet Disclosed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that key aspects of Volkswagen A.G.'s diesel emissions settlement announced on April 21 have still not been disclosed. And if a federal judge gets his way, they won't be for at least a couple months. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer seemed less than amused that some figures had been leaked indicating how much affected car owners would be paid. "I find it a disservice to have information about where people are in terms of negotiations sort of floated out there, which these consumers believe are probably the terms of any final agreement," Judge Breyer said, addressing a packed courtroom. Breyer, a senior judge in the Northern District of California, noted that people who have bought affected cars are worried about how the litigation will affect their finances and their vehicle. While consumers' peace of mind is one concern, Judge Breyer may also fear the complaints sure to rain on his chambers once the terms are released. Having information dribbled out before a deal is finalized, he said, "gives them some suggestion that perhaps maybe their particular concerns won't be addressed." Judge Breyer said he would formally order the parties to keep the contents of any tentative agreement confidential until it is filed with the court. He set a June 21 deadline for a proposed settlement to be submitted, after which he said he would encourage public scrutiny of the deal. "But until then, there is truly nothing for them to comment on," he said. In a case that has drawn worldwide media attention, his remarks did little to deter a gaggle of reporters in the courtroom from pressing lawyers for more details. Robert Giuffra Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell, who represents Volkswagen, and plaintiff steering committee chair Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein declined to go beyond their statements in court. Judge Breyer did lift the curtain a bit on the agreement in principle among Volkwagen, U.S. government officials and lawyers representing car owners. For the approximately 480,000 affected two-liter-engine cars on the road, VW owners will have the option of Volkswagen buying back their vehicles or having them repaired to address excess emissions. Meanwhile, people who leased their cars will be able to cancel the lease, Judge Breyer said. VW will have to pay "substantial compensation" in connection with the car buyback, Breyer said, and create a fund to remediate the environmental damage caused by the excess emissions of nitrogen oxide. Mr. Giuffra, Ms. Cabraser and Joshua Van Eaton of the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed the deal's outlines during the hearing. The deal was reached among VW, lawyers for the plaintiffs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board in conjunction with the California attorney general's office, Judge Breyer said. Also appearing in court on April 21 was Jonathan Cohen of the Federal Trade Commission. Judge Breyer said he understands the FTC supports the deal, pending final approval by the full commission. The FTC filed a consumer-deception complaint in March alleging that VW sold or leased more than 550,000 diesel cars based on false claims that they were low-emission, environmentally friendly, met emissions standards and would maintain a high resale value. Judge Breyer is overseeing hundreds of lawsuits against Volkswagen related to disclosures that its VW-, Audi- and Porsche-branded vehicles were installed with software to cheat emissions tests and, according to the EPA, release as much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxide. WEN: Faces Another Suit Over Shampoo Adverse Effects ---------------------------------------------------- Jess Swanson, writing for Broward Palm Beach New Times, reports that in 2009, Los Angeles-based celebrity hair stylist Chaz Dean released Wen, a line of hair-care products that purportedly cleans and conditions without harsh sulfates to create a healthy, natural look. Actresses Alyssa Milano and Christina Applegate have touted the products on infomercials. So has Brooke Shields, who in one commercial flips her hair, looks into the camera, and says, "Wen is the only thing that can change everything for your hair." Waverly Robinson of Davie didn't get the softer, shinier, bouncier locks that Shields or the other A-list celebrities have raved about, but she agrees that Wen's cleansing condition definitely "change[d] everything" for her hair. According to a lawsuit filed in Broward County in April, Ms. Robinson says Wen products caused balding, dryness, thinning, and an itchy scalp. Her claims mirror hundreds of others in an ongoing class-action suit. "The products are the cause of widespread hair loss suffered by the Plaintiff," the complaint states. "Simply put, no reasonable consumer would purchase a hair product, like the ones at issue, if they knew at the time of purchase that it would cause their hair to fall out." On Consumer Affairs' site, a woman from Brandon, Florida, wrote in January: "I used this product, and I lost half of my hair and have huge bald spots." A few weeks later, a woman in Loxahatchee wrote, "In less than a month, my hair was coming out in patches . . . I was bald for about 1.5 years before it grew in." In February, a woman from Orlando reported, "Each time [I used Wen], I had clumps of hair falling out in my shower, all over my comb and brush . . . I had so much hair falling out that I got scared and started crying." In 2014, more than 200 people joined a California class-action lawsuit against Wen by Chaz Dean. They alleged that the cleansing conditioner, which costs as much as $32 for 16 ounces, leads to balding and rashes. The litigation is ongoing. Robinson purchased the Wen cleansing conditioner from QVC and paid more than $100 for the hair-care package. Ms. Robinson's suit -- unlike the other class action against Wen -- also goes after QVC, the billion-dollar TV infomercial channel that sells Wen and other products. The complaint accuses QVC of not disclosing the adverse effects. A QVC spokesperson was unable to comment on the litigation. Wen spokesperson Joe Hixson tells New Times that Ms. Robinson's suit is similar to the other. "It does not present solid evidence. It's speculation is what it is. There's nothing to show that the people having issues are not for the hundreds of other issues like alopecia (a condition causing hair loss), stress, or allergy," he says. "It's concerning that millions of bottles have been sold and the universe of people having problems is so small." Ms. Robinson's attorney, Josh Eggnatz, explains that the litigation is in its initial stages. His firm represents Ms. Robinson and other buyers in Florida. "Chaz Dean and QVC represent themselves as reputable companies, and consumers rely on the reputation and purchase from them. It's the same reason people purchase the name brand and not the store brand," Mr. Eggnatz tells New Times. "Certainly if our client had known that this product would cause her hair to thin and fall out, if it was disclosed on the label, then she would not have purchased it and wouldn't have paid the price that she did." WOODBURY CHILD: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Work Termination ------------------------------------------------------------- Sakina Davis, and all other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Woodbury Child Development Center, Inc. (WCDC), and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-001572-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages under Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), as a result of the Defendant's actions, including terminating Plaintiff or for intentional, purposeful, willful and egregious retaliation, performed by members of upper management. On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff received a "notice of written warning" stating that she was being issued a written warning because of issues related to her performance. On August 27, 2015, plaintiff wrote an e-mail correspondence to the board stating that she believed the notice of written warning was a result of her bringing to WCDC's attention "unlawful financial transactions" that were "prohibited for non-profit organizations." Plaintiff also indicated in that correspondence that she had contacted her attorneys regarding the written warning, and her report of potential fraudulent transactions by the WCDC are protected by the Whistleblower Act. Four days after this e-mail was sent, on August 31, 2015, Plaintiff received a letter from the WCDC stating that she was being suspended immediately from her role as Director of the WCDC. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff received a letter from WCDC stating that she was being terminated immediately. WCDC is a child care center serving community and families since its opening in 1969 at Woodbury, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 ZANIMO INC: Recalls Vermi Liquid Products ----------------------------------------- Starting date: April 14, 2016 Posting date: April 26, 2016 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Veterinary Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58096 The product does not have marketing authorisation (DIN) Depth of distribution: Retailers - Quebec and Ontario Affected products Vermi DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM Not applicable Dosage form: Liquid Strength: Not applicable Lot or serial number: 4CR04 4F034 4I159 4L019 4LR19 5E047 5K053 Recalling Firm: Zanimo Inc. 231 chemin du Marais St-Adolphe-d'Howard J0T 2B0 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization: Holder Not Applicable * Class Actions Over Parmesan Cheese Mislabeling Pile Up -------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that nearly 45 lawsuits have been filed alleging that four brands labeled "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" including Kraft and Wal- Mart's private brand fail to tell consumers that they actually contain fillers made from wood pulp. The lawsuits, all class actions, allege that the products are mislabeled because they contain additives such as cellulose, which is an anti-clumping agent made from wood pulp. The suits bring claims under several state consumer laws, common laws and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. "In a nutshell, a number of retailers are selling parmesan cheese with the misrepresentation that it's 100 percent parmesan cheese when in fact it is not," said John Driscoll of The Driscoll Firm in St. Louis, who filed a Feb. 29 motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all the cases to the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiffs attorneys Todd Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- and Greg Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- partners at Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber in White Plains, New York, have filed competing motions on March 4 to transfer the litigation to the Southern District of New York. The MDL panel has scheduled the matter for its May 26 hearing in Chicago. In response, the defendant companies have denied the mislabeling accusations and attributed the litigation to a Feb. 16 article on Bloomberg.com that cited independent laboratory studies finding that 7.8 percent of Wal-Mart's 100% parmesan cheese contained cellulose and Kraft's had 3.8 percent. The article cited a senior executive of a defunct cheese manufacturer and onetime supplier to Target Corp. who pleaded guilty on Feb. 26 to one count of selling a "misbranded and adulterated food" following an investigation from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Prosecutors alleged that Parmesan and Romano made by her company, Castle Cheese Inc., were falsely labeled as containing 100 percent real cheese. Erika Winkels, a spokeswoman for Target, which sells parmesan cheese under the "Market Pantry" private label, wrote in an email on April 26 that Castle Cheese has "never been an authorized Target vendor. There are no Castle Cheese-produced or -packed Market Pantry parmesan cheese products on Target's shelves." The lawsuits were all filed after the Bloomberg article was published. Most of the suits were filed against The Kraft Heinz Co., whose lawyer, Dean Panos of Jenner & Block, wrote in a March 21 court filing that the suits should be coordinated in Northern District of Illinois, where one of Kraft's headquarters locations is based, in Chicago. Many other plaintiffs attorneys also supported that district. Mr. Panos declined to comment. Target, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Supervalu Inc. also were sued over their private label cheese. Ms. Winkels, for Target, when asked about the lawsuits filed, said Target declined to comment. A lawyer and spokesman for Supervalu did not respond to requests for comment about the litigation. Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said, "We take this matter seriously. As this moves through the court system, we'll respond appropriately." In April 5 filings, Wal-Mart lawyer David Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig supported the Eastern District of Missouri, close to its headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, and Joshua Glikin, a partner at Bowie & Jensen in Towson, Maryland, a lawyer for Minneapolis-based Target, wanted them transferred to Maryland. Glikin also represents ICCO-Cheese Co. Inc., an Orangeburg, New York-based manufacturer named in one of the suits that provides private-label cheese to Target and Wal- Mart. Supervalu attorney Sarah Brew -- sarah.brew@FaegreBD.com -- a partner at Faegre Baker Daniels, pushed for Minnesota, where she and her client are based in the Minneapolis area. Brew also represents Albertson's LLC, which was named in one of the cases. Minnesota also was a favorite among some plaintiffs attorneys, as were districts in Pennsylvania and Florida. * Law Firms Take Steps to Avert Additional Data Breaches -------------------------------------------------------- Zach Olsen, writing for Legaltech News, reports that recent news about large scale data breaches at two major law firms in New York, and a newly public list of others being targeted in Chicago, confirmed what many in the U.S. legal industry have long known but have been reluctant to accept: Law firms are the newest and softest target of cyber-criminal syndicates that are set on stealing and monetizing confidential information, from market- moving M&A intel to sensitive patent filings. The news has signaled an important turning point for the legal community as law firms struggle to come to terms with the real-life repercussions of a breach and the effect on their reputations and bottom lines. Whether a sophisticated cyber attack or a rudimentary phishing scheme, any breach that exposes confidential client information, or worse, can irreparably harm a firm's reputation and the client relationships it holds dear. Many firms are now taking the necessary steps to protect and insure themselves for the inevitable attack, but far too many still fall short and are leaving themselves and their clients open to abuse at the hands of those who rule the dark web. The Truth is in the Numbers Crisis communications firm Infinite Spada recently partnered with ALM Legal Intelligence to survey law firms around the U.S. in an effort to gauge firm preparedness for cyber attacks. The good news: About two-thirds of the law firms surveyed were comfortable with their firms' abilities to withstand a cyber attack. The bad news: Once interviewers started digging deeper, they found many firms (even those that thought they could withstand an attack) were not following the commonly accepted best practices for preventing cyber attacks. For example: While 87 percent of firms said employees were trained on policies and procedures for preventing a cyber attack, only 28 percent of firms hold cyber security "fire drills" quarterly or semi- annually. Training is considered critical to thwarting cyber attacks, and experts recommend holding drills at least twice a year. Nearly 30 percent of law firms haven't yet performed a formal information, privacy and security assessment. These audits help identify the most sensitive and valuable data, allowing the firm to create additional layers of security to protect that information. 87 percent of law firms also said they require their vendors to carry cyber-liability insurance, yet nearly one-third of firms don't carry such insurance themselves. While cyber-liability insurance won't help prevent an attack, it can assist in the aftermath, and many corporations now require their vendors -- including law firms -- to carry such coverage. Getting Ahead of the Game: Forming an External Data Breach Team At the most basic level, two factors put all law firms at risk of cyber attacks: people and technology. Any business that relies on devices connected to the internet -- servers, computers, phones or tablets -- has a potential cyber exposure. But hackers don't just gain access to systems by brute force. Instead, most exploit an organization's biggest vulnerability: its employees. Often, all it takes to gain access to a server is one employee, carelessly clicking a malicious link or sharing a password via email, and the attackers are in. But while people can undermine a firm's cyber security, they can also do a lot to enhance it. By building a strong data breach team before an attack occurs, a firm can not only strengthen its fortresses, but be ready to respond at a moment's notice. "Law firms can do themselves a huge favor by investing time up front to interviewing and hiring members of their breach response team," said Jennifer Rothstein, a director in Kroll's Cyber Security practice. "Assembling a team of legal, forensics, and communications experts before a crisis hits, ensures firms will have at the ready a group of people they trust and want to work with when a breach hits and the pressure is on. Tabletop exercises and other practice sessions that test firms' Incident Response Plans serve to strengthen the team and identify gaps with enough time to remediate." A well-prepared firm will have a strong internal team -- including a firm leader, chief information security officer, security architect, and IT staff -- that has met with and trusts the external response team and is able to assemble without hesitation and quickly identify and respond to attacks in progress. For those firms with internal IT, security and risk-management personnel identified, focusing on finding four key external partners should be priority: A reputable insurance carrier, with a demonstrated history of providing cyber insurance policies for law firms. Many carriers claim to provide the right kind of policies to protect and remediate in the event of a cyber intrusion, but are heavy on exclusions which negate coverage. A computer forensics firm, which is responsible for testing your firm's security upfront and subsequently identifying how attackers gained access to your servers, whether attackers are still on the network, and what information or systems were compromised. An effective forensics firm will have the technical know-how to analyze the attack, but also the communications skills to clearly explain the scope and magnitude of the breach in a non-technical manner to firm leadership. If your firm doesn't have a data privacy and cybersecurity practice, then outside privacy counsel is critical. Often referred to as the "breach coach," privacy counsel has a holistic understanding of cyber attacks and data breach response. Privacy counsel can manage the investigation and act as liaison between members of the data breach team, ensure appropriate evidence is preserved, advise the firm on relevant privacy and notification laws triggered by the breach, work with law enforcement, and interact with regulators if the attack prompts a government investigation. A public relations firm with a crisis communications team that understands the life cycle of a data breach, and knows how to work hand-in-hand with privacy counsel. A data breach can seriously damage your firm's reputation and prompt clients to take their business elsewhere, especially if they feel like the firm could have done more to protect them and their information. A good crisis communications team with experience liaising with legal counsel will understand the reputational impact of an attack; how to prepare upfront; the state-by-state disclosure requirements; and the communications nuances that can help or hurt a law firm's credibility and the confidence of its clients. A Rapidly Evolving Disclosure Landscape Today, 47 states plus the District of Columbia have laws that require businesses to notify customers if breaches involving "personally identifiable information" is compromised. Although some laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act include penalties for data breaches, many do not. But the tide may be changing. In February, for example, the California Attorney General released a report on data breaches, and recommended 20 security controls that businesses should implement to reduce the risk of cyber attacks. California data security lawyers predict that the AG may look at if a company implemented these controls when trying to determine whether to take enforcement action in the wake of a data breach. "We can infer from the Report -- although it does not state directly -- that the Attorney General will look to the Controls as enforcement guidelines in the absence of any particular statute, case, or regulation providing a definitive interpretation," said Batya Forsyth, a partner at Hanson Bridgett, in a recent client alert. "On another level, the interest in providing enforcement guidelines also may signal that the Attorney General intends to step up enforcement against companies that fail to implement what are deemed reasonable security procedures and practices." Not the Last Word Whether the industry is ready to admit it or not, law firms are clear in the sights of hackers around the world. And if recent data is believed, most firms still need to ramp up their cyber security efforts, lock in their cyber insurance policies, and have a plan in place to deal with the breaches that are clearly on the horizon. Though the forecast may be bleak, the damage can be minimized if the decision makers in the legal industry band together, accept there is a real and credible threat, and take preemptive measures to curb and swiftly respond to those threats. * Gig Economy Sector to Face More Legal Battles After Uber Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the war may be over for Uber Technologies Inc. but by cutting a check for tens of millions of dollars to settle a slew of threatening labor class actions, it may have just bought the gig economy a whole new set of legal battles. Lawyers say the $84 million settlement that Uber reached -- which can rise to as much as $100 million if the company goes public or is acquired and increases in value -- is like a flashing neon invitation for the plaintiffs bar to keep waging the fight. And by failing to resolve the core issue of whether on-demand workers are independent contractors or employees, the Uber settlement leaves plenty of grist for the mill. "I don't think this does anything to alleviate any of the litigation," said Todd Scherwin, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Fisher & Phillips who represents employers. "I think other smaller companies that are part of the sharing economy were hoping for a definite result here." Mr. Scherwin said that he anticipates that the large settlement will entice other plaintiff lawyers to "take a crack" at enterprises with business models similar to Uber's. "Those are big dollar signs," he said. Daniel Hutchinson, a partner at plaintiffs firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, agreed. "Certainly to the extent that this leaves a lack of clarity on these issues, I certainly think there will be people who look to resolve" them in other cases, Hutchinson said. Daniel Handman -- dhandman@HKemploymentlaw.com -- of employer firm Hirschfeld Kraemer was even more blunt. "I really think that this case was just the tip of the iceberg," he said. There are at least a dozen other cases pending in California courts against a cast of app-enabled, on-demand companies. Instacart, GrubHub and DoorDash have all come in the crosshairs. Steven Davidoff Solomon, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy, was less convinced that the Uber settlement will stoke more litigation in the "share economy" space. "It does leave a lot unsettled," Davidoff Solomon said. "But given the rise of arbitration agreements . . . most of this will be funneled out of the court." Companies eyeing the Uber battle, and a similar suit against Lyft Inc., have retooled their agreements to make sure they are air-tight, he said. The end result is that the fight will ultimately have to be addressed by the Legislature, Davidoff Solomon said, positing that this may be better anyway. "The courts are not well-equipped to deal with this issue." In obvious ways, the Uber settlement is a big win for the gig economy's chief antagonist: Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss- Riordan of Lichten & Liss Riordan. She founded her firm just seven years ago, and before launching the cases in 2013 was unknown in the Northern California legal scene. But by allowing Uber to continue classifying its drivers as independent contractors, the litigation also clearly falls short of Ms. Liss-Riordan's original goal. In an April 2015 interview, she professed a conviction that the companies had both an obligation and a clear ability to provide workers with basic benefits. ********* 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 * * *