/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 115 Headlines 39 DEGREES INC: Faces "Yang" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. A10 NETWORKS: Settles Class Action for $800,000 ACCEL MOTORS: "Moslem" Asserts Sole Ownership of Firm ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Wages Under FLSA ALERE INC: "Andren" Sues Over Faulty Monitoring Equipment AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Iida" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Simmons" Suit in W.D. Wash. AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLUE SHIELD: "Des Roches" Sues Over Denied Claims BONA 1900: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Banegas" Suit CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Suit Extended CALIFORNIA: Schwarz Seeks Certification of Prisoner Classes CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces Class Action by Beneficial Owners CAMEL CARPENTRY: "Contreras" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay CAMPBELL SOUP CO: "Ferguson" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Sought in "Hepfner" Suit CELAPURE LLC: Faces "Arkin" Suit in M.D. Fla. CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Meier" CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Merger Lawsuit CHEN SUSHI KING: "Spallone" Files Suit Under FLSA COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims CREDIT BUREAU: "Hamlet" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. W. Virg. CVS PHARMACY: "Ramos" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay DAVIE BLVD: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay DIANA'S COMMISSARY: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DILIGENT HEALTH: "Meza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Bid to Appeal ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Friedman" Sues Over Share Price Drop EURAMEX MANAGEMENT: "Jackson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Rauch" Suit in E.D.N.Y. FUTURE PAYMENT: Faces "Russell M. Holstein" Suit in D.N.J. GERDAU SA: "Boland" Sues Over Depository Receipt Price Drop GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to July 1 HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against St. Paul Teachers' Case HIALEAH PARK: "Jordan" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay HOUSTON BEER: "Reissig" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA IMS HEALTH: "ARCare" Sues Over TCPA Violation INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Donato" Securities Litigation INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $45MM Cash Payment Anticipated in Q2 KEMPER SPORTS: "Stapleton" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages KLX ENERGY: "Reed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: "McKinnon" Suit to Recover Illegal Deductions KNOWLES CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Held in Audience IPO Suit KNOWLES CORPORATION: July 29 Hearing in Audience Acquisition Suit LA PARIS CAFE: "Casanova" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Shabazz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MAGNA CHEK: Intersol Seeks Certification of Class in Illinois MALABAR INVESTMENTS: "Torres" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: "Bishop-Bristol" Suit Transferred to Mass. MASTEC INC: Two-Week Trial Period Set in March 2017 MCSS REST: Faces "Mendez" Suit in E.D.N.Y MDL 2724: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Actions to E.D. Pa. MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: "Carter" Suit Moved to E.D. Ark. MERITOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Actions in Michigan MITEL NETWORKS: Approval of Stockholder Actions Pending MP 3 CONSTRUCTION: "Carruega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA NASDAQ INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit NASDAQ INC: Appeal in City of Providence Suit Pending NASDAQ INC: Oral Argument Heard in "Lanier" Case Appeal NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shareholder Litigation Pending NIKIL INC: "Warciak" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill. ON DECK CAPITAL: Court Approved Schedule for Motion to Dismiss OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending OVASCIENCE INC: Two Class Actions in Massachusetts Consolidated PACIFIC OCEAN TRANS: "Barnwell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Merger Class Action Dismissed PERFUME CENTER: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in E.D.N.Y. PET CLUB: Faces "Thornsburry" Suit in D. Ariz. PHARMAVITE LLC: Lost Bid to Decertify Classes in "Barrera" Suit RAINBOW ENTERPRISES: "Pesenecker" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay REALOGY HOLDINGS: Strader Second Amended Complaint Filed REED HEIN: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT, Wages, Benefits RETROPHIN INC: June 10 Final Settlement Approval Hearing RGS FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Zolandz" Suit RICHARD SNYDER: "Nappier" Suit Moved to W.D. Mich. ROSA MEXICANO: "Huerta" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay ROSKO HOLDINGS: "Sangworrakan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ROUSE PROPERTIES: Stockholders File Action Against Brookfield S & A UNIFIED: "Shulyar" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code SAGE PAYMENT: Faces "ARcare" Suit in E.D. Ark. SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS: "Beck" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Suit Pending SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Parmelee and Benson Lawsuits SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. Cal. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rivera" Suit in D.N.J. SENTRY SURVEILLANCE: "Chemaly" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SETERUS INC: Acquired Unlawful Profit, "Rozwadowska" Suit Claims SHIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Orozi" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIEMENS INDUSTRY: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT SINGLECARE SERVICES: Comprehensive Health Files Suit in S.D. Fla. SODEXO INC: "Riestra" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SPARK ENERGY: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Melville Suit SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Amaya" Case SPRING MEADOWS: "Nwogwugwu" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA SPROUTS FARMERS: Shareholder Class Action Removed STATE FARM: "Cranfield" Breach of Contract Suit moved to N.D. Ohio SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT: "Pinzon" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Law SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Telexfree Case Pending TACOS AL CARBON: Violated FLSA, "Vigil" Suit Claims TANGOE INC: "Moleski" Files Securities Class Action TARGET CORP: "Rizzo" Sues over Share Price Drop TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending TD AMERITRADE: Appeal Filed in "Verdieck" Action TD AMERITRADE: Accord in Reserve Yield Litigation Has Final OK TEMPUR SEALY: Still Defends "Todd" Class Action TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Entered Into Binding Term Sheet THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Faces "Adams" Suit Over ADA Breach TIME INC: Rose Coulter-Owens Filed Class Action Appeal TIME INC: To Defend Against "Perlin" Case TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims TRUE RELIGION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla. TRUEACCORD CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "Lisiecki" Suit TUMI HOLDINGS: Class Action Filed Over Samsonite Merger TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Continues to Defend Wilder Litigation UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Singh" Suit Moved to D.N.J. UNILIFE CORP: "Bulcock" Files Securities Class Action VALSPAR CORP: Sued Over Merger Breaches with Sherwin-Williams VEREIT INC: Oral Argument Held in May in Consolidated Suit VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Esposito" Suit VEREIT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Witchko" Suit Pending VEREIT INC: Appeal in "Poling" Action Still Pending VEREIT INC: Carter and Schindler Actions Dismissed WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4MM of Settlement in Q1 WOODHULL TOWERS: "Polanco" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla. YSL CARE: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ********* 39 DEGREES INC: Faces "Yang" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against 39 Degrees, Inc. The case is captioned Cher Yang, an individual, Samantha Yang an individual, and Ka Lilly Yang, an individual, individually and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs., v. 39 Degrees, Inc., a California corporation, I Luv Sushi, an unknown entity, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC621964 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 27, 2016). 39 Degrees is a creative production company that makes films, takes pictures and tells stories, come rain or shine. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq. KO LEGAL, INC 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 628 5548 Facsimile: (562) 242 1590 E-mail: Kim@KO-Legal.com A10 NETWORKS: Settles Class Action for $800,000 ----------------------------------------------- A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims against all defendants asserted in the action and providing that the Company will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected proceeds of insurance policies. The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of our March 21, 2014 initial public offering ("IPO") were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207. Several substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015). On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207." "On April 6, 2016, all parties entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims against all defendants asserted in the action and providing that we will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected proceeds of insurance policies. The settlement releases all claims asserted against all defendants and includes the dismissal of all claims against all defendants without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The settlement remains subject to stockholder notice, court approval and other customary conditions. A case management conference is currently scheduled for August 5, 2016." A10 Networks, Inc. offers four software based advanced application networking and network security solutions to address end-customer needs, including Application Delivery Controllers ("ADC") to optimize web and back-office application performance, Carrier Grade Network Address Translation ("CGN") to provide network address, protocol translation services for service provider networks and Threat Protection System ("TPS") for network-wide multi-vector DDoS security protection and Convergent Firewall ("CFW") for protecting data centers and mobile infrastructure, improving web security, and encrypting site-to-site communications. ACCEL MOTORS: "Moslem" Asserts Sole Ownership of Firm ----------------------------------------------------- Mehdi Moslem a/k/a Michael Moslem and Accel Motors, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Dante DeMartino, Drew Smith and John Doe, Defendants, Case No. 705768/2016 (N.Y Sup., May 16, 2016), seeks a declaratory judgment that (a) Plaintiff is the sole shareholder and owner of Accel, due to Defendant DeMartino's breach of his fiduciary duty, and (b) Defendants Smith, DeMartino and John Doe cannot hold themselves out as shareholders or officers of Accel. Moslem alleges that his shares in Accel were fraudulently transferred in order to conceal debt from creditors. DeMartino opened a line of credit against the assets of the corporation, without the consent or knowledge of Plaintiff, forcing Plaintiff to refinance the corporation. Drew Smith refused to tender any consideration for the transfer of DeMartino's shares in Accel Motors. Mehdi Moslem owns Accel Motors, Inc., a car dealership located at 30-15 Thomson Ave., Long Island City, New York 11101. He issued 51 shares of Accel to DeMartino. DeMartino entered into a real estate partnership with Drew Smith, allegedly using Accel assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elias C. Schwartz, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF ELIAS C. SCHWARTZ, PLLC 343 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: 516-487-0175 ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia, Inc., Act Fast Delivery, Inc., Home Care Pharmacy, LLC d/b/a variety of entities including but not limited to Omnicare of Nitro and/or Omnicare of Nitro, West Virginia, Compass Health Services, LLC d/b/a variety of entities including but not limited to Omnicare of Morgantown and/or Omnicare of Morgantown, West Virginia, Omnicare, Inc., and other John Doe, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04909 (S.D. W. Virg., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, unlawful deduction, attorneys' fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff and other Route Drivers to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but failed to compensate them at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Defendants' business includes the delivery of pharmaceutical and medical products to customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq. Elise Q. McQuain, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP P. O. Box 2107 Charleston, WV 25328-2107 Telephone: 304-346 7000 ALERE INC: "Andren" Sues Over Faulty Monitoring Equipment --------------------------------------------------------- Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alere Inc., a Delaware corporation, Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Alere San Diego, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01255-GPC-NLS (S.D. Ga., May 26, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoinment, restitution and disgorgement of all monies acquired by Defendants with interest, attorney fees, expenses and recoverable costs and such other and further relief resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. Alere, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of California and nationwide. Alere, Inc., independently and through its subsidiaries Alere Home Monitoring, Inc. and Defendant Alere San Diego, Inc. manufactures, markets and sells medical diagnostic testing products including the International Normalized Ratio monitoring product. Andren suffers from a medical condition that requires her to closely monitor the relative speed at which blood clots form in her body using the equipment she bought from the Defendants. She did not take her medication because of faulty readings from said equipment and suffered a stroke as a result. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Pifko, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. Mark Pifko, Esq. Peter Klausner, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Iida" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The case is captioned Justin Iida and Larry Iida, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC622189 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016). American Honda Motor manufactures and sells Honda automobiles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Simmons" Suit in W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery Group, Inc. The case is captioned Natalie F. Simmons and Stephen H. Simmons, husband and wife, Katherine A. Rohr-Smith, and Zaldy Fernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Asset Recovery Group, Inc., doing business as: Asset Recovery Group of Washington, an Oregon corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00794 (W.D. Wash., May 31, 2016). Asset Recovery Group, Inc., is an accounts receivable management firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Antoinette Marie Davis, Esq. ANTOINETTE M. DAVIS 528 Third Avenue West, Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98119 Telephone: (206) 486 1011 Facsimile: (206) 905 5910 E-mail: tonie@toniedavislaw.com - and - Guy William Beckett, Esq. BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP 1708 Bellevue Ave Seattle, WA 98122-2017 Telephone: (206) 441 5444 Facsimile: (206) 838 6346 E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com - and - Kim Williams, Esq. Roblin John Williamson, Esq. WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS 2239 W Viewmont Way W Seattle, WA 98199 Telephone: (206) 294 3085 Facsimile: (206) 535 7899 E-mail: kim@williamslaw.com roblin@williamslaw.com AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Corporation. The case is captioned Simon Meron, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100, Inclusive, and AT&T Corporation, A New York Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 552308 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016). AT&T, originally the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is the subsidiary of AT&T that provides voice, video, data, and Internet telecommunications and professional services to businesses, consumers, and government agencies. BLUE SHIELD: "Des Roches" Sues Over Denied Claims ------------------------------------------------- Charles Des Roches, on his own behalf and on behalf of his beneficiary son, R.D., and all others similarly situated and Sylvia Meyer, on her own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Physicians Service D/B/A Blue Shield Of California, Human Affairs International Of California and Magellan Health Services of California, Inc. (Employer Services), Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02848-HRL, (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2016), seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs are each insured by a health insurance plan that is sponsored by their employer where Blue Shield is responsible both for paying claims under the Plans and for administering the Plan. Plaintiffs' plans cover in-and-out-of-network treatments for illnesses and injuries as well as for mental illnesses and substance use disorders. Charles Des Roches, on behalf of himself, his minor son R.D., is insured under a Blue Shield of California health plan through his employer. Sylvia Meyer is insured under a Blue Shield of California health plan through her employer. Both were denied claims for rehabilitation treatment. Plaintiffs are represented by: Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Tel: (310) 598-3690 ext. 101 Fax: (310) 564-0040 Email: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Kyle J. McGee, Esq. Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (646) 722-8500 Fax: (646) 722-8501 Email: dberger@gelaw.com kmcgee@gelaw.com rmusarra@gelaw.com - and - Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 704-9600 Fax: (212) 704-4256 Email: jcowart@zuckerman.com BONA 1900: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Banegas" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Scarlet Banegas and Odin Campos, On Behalf of Themselves and Similarly Situated Employees v. Bona 1900, Inc. and Hnreck Nazarian a/k/a Nazarian Enterprises d/b/a IHOP ("International House of Pancakes"), Case No. 1:16-cv- 00086-MAC (E.D. Tex.), file their motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and send notice to members of a class of all current and former hourly employees of the Defendants, who work or worked at restaurants owned, operated, supervised or managed by the Defendants during the three-year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them and a class of similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lE4bAlQy The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Lynn Walden, Esq. David D. Reynard, Jr. WALDENREYNARD, P.L.L.C. Post Office Box 7486 Beaumont, TX 77726 Telephone: (409) 833-0202 Facsimile: (409) 832-3564 E-mail: twalden@wrtexaslaw.com dreynard@wrtexaslaw.com CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Suit Extended --------------------------------------------------------- Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the deadline to respond to the Nevada lawsuit related to the Company's merger with Caesars Entertainment Corporation has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties. On December 21, 2014, the Company and CEC entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, among other things, CAC will merge with and into CEC, with CEC as the surviving company (the "Proposed Merger"). On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and, he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the "Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to protect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties. CALIFORNIA: Schwarz Seeks Certification of Prisoner Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify two of the three classes of persons set forth in the operative complaint in the lawsuit styled BENJAMIN R. SCHWARZ, in his individual and class representative capacities v. ERWIN MEINBERG, et al., Case No. CV- 13-00356-BRO(PLAx) (C.D. Cal.). The two classes are: Class 2: all BOP Los Angeles MDC prisoners who, because they were subjected to the wrongful conduct of BOP officials and employees who forced them to reside in a prison cell whose toilet violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because it was unsanitary, damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief; and Class 3, all BOP prisoners who were subjected to a denial of the opportunity to be placed in a BOP camp, based solely on the fact that they were foreigners. A hearing will be held on June 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IuDgwyS7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Reichmann, Esq. YAGMAN & REICHMANN 475 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287 Telephone: (310) 452-3200 CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces Class Action by Beneficial Owners ------------------------------------------------------------- California Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported class action was filed on April 21, 2016, against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all beneficial owners of the Company's unsecured notes from November 12, 2015 to the present. "The complaint alleges that our December 2015 debt exchange excluded non-qualified institutional holders in violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and related law and, thereby, impaired their rights to receive principal and interest payments. The purported class action seeks declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens securing the new notes are null and void and that the debt exchange resulted in a default. The plaintiff also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims made by the plaintiff," the Company said. CAMEL CARPENTRY: "Contreras" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Yhon Anderson Arias Contreras and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Camel Carpentry Inc, Stefanie Suarez, Elizabeth I. Negrete, Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-21915-RNS, (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks double damages for all overtime wages still owing and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff claims to be denied the half time overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week. 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 CAMPBELL SOUP CO: "Ferguson" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ Melinda Ferguson, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Campbell Soup Company, Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1606306, (Cal. Super. April 28, 2016), was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 24, 2016, Case No. 5:16-cv- 01077-BRO-SK. Plaintiff brings causes of action under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Profession Code for unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct, California False Advertising Law for misleading, deceptive and untrue advertising. Defendant is represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Andrea M. Weiss, Esq. Rebecca B. Johns, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 Email: dgiali@mayerbrown.com aweiss@mayerbrown.com rjohns@mayerbrown.com Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 - and - Paul K. Joseph THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC 4125 W. Point Loma Blvd. #206 San Diego, CA 92110 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Sought in "Hepfner" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARY HEPFNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, and CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLP, Case No. 2:16-cv-00648-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to both stay the motion for class certification and grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YS1Omc2J The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com CELAPURE LLC: Faces "Arkin" Suit in M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Celapure, LLC. The case is captioned Dr. Steven Arkin, a Florida resident, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Celapure, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, AQ Skin Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01352-JDW-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. James D. Whittemore. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross M. Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Meier" ------------------------------------------------------ Checkpoint Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the plaintiff in the Meier Class Action Lawsuit has filed an amended complaint. The Company said, "On November 11, 2015, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers captioned, Meier v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-08007 (RBK)(KMW) (D.N.J.). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws related to the restatement of the Company's previously-issued financial statements announced on November 3, 2015. The complaint names as defendants our Chief Executive Officer and President George Babich, Jr., our Chief Financial Officer James M. Lucania, our former Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey O. Richard, and the Company. The complaint alleges that we had filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission beginning on March 5, 2015 through November 3, 2015, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b- 5." "On February 19, 2016, the Court entered an Order appointing a lead plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On April 4, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which named the same defendants as the original complaint and additionally alleged that the Company's statements about the effectiveness of its internal control over the tax function and use of EPS in evaluating quarterly financial performance were false or misleading. "We, together with the individual defendants expect to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint at the appropriate time." CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Merger Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Checkpoint Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company reached a memorandum of understanding reflecting their agreement to settle all claims asserted in the Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated Action related to proposed merger with CCL Industries Inc. The Company said, "Since the announcement of the proposed merger with CCL Industries Inc., Checkpoint and its directors have been named as defendants in complaints filed by four shareholders. On March 7, 2016 and March 8, 2016, respectively, plaintiffs Louis Levine and Shiva Stein filed complaints in the Court of Common Pleas for the Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Division (Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated Action). On March 15, 2016, the Court consolidated these actions; and on April 5, 2016, plaintiffs Levine and Stein filed a consolidated complaint. On March 14, 2016, plaintiff Feivel Gottleib Defined Benefit Pension Plan filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County Chancery Division. On March 18, 2016, plaintiff Harold Litwin filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for the Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Division, which the Court entered an order to discontinue without prejudice on April 6, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Litwin filed a second complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaints allege that our Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the merger agreement and seek an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Litwin's federal complaint further alleges that our Board violated the federal securities laws in connection with our preliminary proxy statement filed on March 17, 2016. "Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. There can be no assurance that we or any of the other defendants will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any potential future lawsuits. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin the completion of the merger. "On April 29, 2016, Checkpoint and the other defendants in the Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated Action executed a memorandum of understanding reflecting their agreement to settle all claims asserted in the Pennsylvania State Court Consolidated Action. The parties subsequently executed a memorandum of understanding reflecting their agreement. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Checkpoint agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with CCL, and to waive the provisions of the nondisclosure agreement with a previous bidder that could have potentially prevented that bidder from making a superior proposal. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter in a stipulation of settlement that will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court of Common Pleas. We recorded an estimated settlement obligation of $0.1 million within other accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and in litigation matters on the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the first quarter of 2016." CHEN SUSHI KING: "Spallone" Files Suit Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------- Robert Spallone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chen Sushi King, LLC and John Does 1-10, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01684-RBH, (D.S.C., May 25, 2016), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. Chen Sushi King operates a restaurant, SOHO 544 located in Horry County. Soho required Spallone to contribute three percent of their net sales each evening to a tip pool intended for employees who did not receive tips. Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Tel: 843.579.7373 Fax: 843.614.6417 Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Comtech Telecommunications Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, that plaintiffs have dismissed their class action lawsuits related to the Company's merger with TeleCommunication Systems. On December 9, 2015, a putative class action, Stanley Magee v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., was commenced by the filing of a complaint in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, against TCS, members of the TCS Board of Directors, Comtech and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech formed to effect the Acquisition, Typhoon Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition Corp."). Three other complaints were filed on December 15, 2015: James Morakis v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., in the same Circuit Court; and Rafal Sawicz v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., and Wesley Shaffron v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., both filed in Maryland state court in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. All of the complaints raise similar putative class claims against TCS, members of the TCS Board, Comtech and Acquisition Corp., in challenging (i) the process undertaken by TCS leading up to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated November 22, 2015, among TCS, Comtech and Acquisition Corp., (ii) the consideration to be received by TCS stockholders and (iii) the disclosures made in connection with the tender offer made pursuant to the Merger Agreement. In the actions brought in Baltimore City, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints and the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against completion of the Acquisition. On March 22, 2016 the court granted defendants' motion, dismissing, with prejudice and without leave to amend, all claims against the defendants. The two actions brought in Anne Arundel County, were consolidated on February 10, 2016, and on April 12, 2016 the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action as to all defendants. CREDIT BUREAU: "Hamlet" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. W. Virg. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Contessa Hamlet, Sandra Perez, and Dorothy Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., doing business as: Chase Receivables; Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc.; Credit Management, LP; Bonded Collection Corporation; I.C. Systems, Inc.; Omni Credit Services, Inc.; Plaza Associates; Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc.; Van Ru Credit Corporation, the Defendants, Case no. 16-C-251, was removed from Raleigh County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Beckley). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-04851 to the proceeding. The Credit Bureau is a collection agency since 1953 located in Sonoma, California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher B. Frost, Esq. HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD P. O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959 Telephone: (304) 574 2727 Facsimile: (304) 574 3709 E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com - and - Jed R. Nolan, Esq. Ralph C. Young, Esq. Steven Broadwater Jr., Esq. HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD P. O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840 Telephone: (304) 574 2727 E-mail: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com The Defendants are represented by: Albert C. Dunn, Jr. BAILEY & WYANT P. O. Box 3710 Charleston, WV 25337-3710 Telephone: (304) 345 4222 Facsimile: (304) 343 3133 E-mail: adunn@baileywyant.com CVS PHARMACY: "Ramos" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Linda Ramos and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Holiday CVS, L.L.C., Defendant(s), Case No. 1:16-cv-21887-DPG, (S.D. Fla. May 25, 2016), seeks unpaid wages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. CVS Pharmacy, Inc and Holiday CVS, L.L.C. are pharmacies in Miami- Dade County where Plaintiff worked. Ramos claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-416-5000 Facsimile: 305-416-5005 Email: agp@agppattorneys.com apetisco@agppattorneys.com rregueiro@agppattorneys.com pn@agppattorneys.com DAVIE BLVD: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Niurka Soler Pineda and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Davie Blvd Coin Laundry, Corp., Osial Castellon, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21879-JEM, (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages still owing, double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a launderer in Defendant's commercial laundry business. Pineda seeks overtime pay. 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 DIANA'S COMMISSARY: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Elda Villagomez Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Diana's Commissary Food Services, Inc., Alba Alvarez and Oscar Blanco, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01464, (S.D. Tex., May 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Garcia worked as a cook and food server on a food truck owned by Defendants. She claims not being paid the required minimum wage or overtime premium for those hours worked over 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com DILIGENT HEALTH: "Meza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Angel Meza, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants, Plaintiff(s), v. Diligent Health, L.L.C. and Diligent Acquisitions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01455, (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2016), seeks unpaid wages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Diligent Health, L.L.C. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. Diligent Acquisitions, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. Both operate as Diligent Delivery Systems, where Meza worked as an account manager. Meza claims he was denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: G. Scott Fiddler, Esq. Andrew W. Reed, Esq. FIDDLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1004 Congress, 2nd Floor Houston, TX 77002 Tel: 713-228-0070 Fax: 713-228-0078 Email: scott@fiddlerlaw.com EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Bid to Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal in the New York Court of Appeals is awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals. Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. The Company said, "One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages." "On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include additional materials from the Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. Oral argument on the appeal was held on October 28, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the Second Class Actions. "The plaintiffs moved the appellate court for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On March 1, 2016, the appellate court denied the motion. On March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal in the New York Court of Appeals. That motion is fully submitted and awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals. "We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an appeal were successful and the court were ultimately to rule against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief. At this time, due to the spectrum of remedies which may result from the outcome of the matter and the difficulty in calculating and allocating damages (if any) among the defendants, we cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome of this litigation and any related indemnification obligations, estimate the amount of loss, or assess their effect, if any, on our financial statements." ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Friedman" Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- Craig Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Endo International PLC, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchie De Silva and Suketu P. Upadhyay, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03912 (S.D. N.Y., May 25, 2016), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Endo develops, manufactures, and distributes pharmaceutical products and devices worldwide. The complaint says Endo's revenue relies in part on favorable arrangements with companies that manage prescription drug benefits for members of health plans -- but made false and/or misleading statements with respect to the migraine therapy Frova -- and included questionable incentives intended to increase sales revenues to such companies. Because of this, company stock price fell $11.32 per share, or 42.57%, in two days of trading. Friedman purchased Endo common stock and lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com EURAMEX MANAGEMENT: "Jackson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jackson, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Euramex Management Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01692-SCJ (N.D. Ga., May 25, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff is a former maintenance technician for the Defendant who was denied overtime compensation during the terms of his employment. Euramex Management Group, LLC. is a Limited Liability Corporation formed under the laws of the State of Georgia which provides delivery services throughout the metropolitan Atlanta area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Pankey, Esq. PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC 1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30338-4122 Tel: 770-670-6250 Fax: 770-670-6249 Email: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Rauch" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP. The case is captioned Lea Rauch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Forster & Garbus LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02728-LDH-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016). The assigned is Hon. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall. Forster & Garbus is a debt collector. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com FUTURE PAYMENT: Faces "Russell M. Holstein" Suit in D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Future Payment Technologies, L.P. The case is captioned Russell M. Holstein, Ph.D., LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Future Payment Technologies, L.P., and John Does 1- 10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03049-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., May 27, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan. Future Payment is a Dallas, Texas-based merchant account provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Nicholas Fiorovanti, Esq. GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA PC 125 Half Mile, Suite 300 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 741 3900 E-mail: mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com GERDAU SA: "Boland" Sues Over Depository Receipt Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- Donald P. Boland and Mary A. Boland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs(s), v. Gerdau S.A., Andre Bier Gerdau Johannpeter, Harley Lorentz Scardoelli, Andre Piras De Oliveira Dias and Osvaldo Burgos Schirmer, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03925, (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks damages, reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and other costs under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Gerdau produces and commercializes steel products worldwide. It is located at Av. Farrapos 1811, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil CEP 90220-005. It allegedly was engaged in a bribery scheme in collusion with Brazil Board of Tax Appeals; money laundering; influence peddling; and made false/baseless reports about its business, operations, and prospects. Its American depositary receipts prices dropped after corrective disclosures. Plaintiffs purchased American depositary receipts from Gerdau, traded on the NYSE, and lost substantially. Andre Bier Gerdau Johannpeter, Harley Lorentz Scardoelli, Andre Piras De Oliveira Dias and Osvaldo Burgos Schirmer served as members of the Board of Directors of Gerdau. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to July 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- Gramercy Property Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in a New Jersey class action has been moved to July 1, 2016, from May 20, 2016. On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a purported shareholder of Chambers. The action, captioned Elstein v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-15 (the "New Jersey Action"), names as defendants Chambers, its board of trustees and Legacy Gramercy. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the trustees of Chambers breached their fiduciary duties to Chambers' shareholders by agreeing to the Merger after a flawed sales process and by approving improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement, and that Legacy Gramercy aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also alleges that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus was materially misleading and incomplete. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief and an award of damages. On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of the New Jersey Action. While the defendants in the New Jersey Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Legacy Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Chambers shareholders. On April 4, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider final approval for May 20, 2016. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders of Chambers challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant to terms set forth in the notice sent to Chambers' shareholders. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated. The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit. Plaintiff Margie Elstein is represented by: Lombardi Steven P 374 Millburn Ave, Suite 301 Millburn, NJ 07041-0000 Tel: (973) 921-2860 Defendants Chambers Street Properties et al. are represented by: DUANE MORRIS LLP 1940 Route 70 East, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003-0000 Tel: (856) 874-4200 Defendant Gramercy Property Trust Inc. is represented by: PORZIO BROMBERG NEWMAN PC 100 Southgate Parkway PO Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 Tel: (973) 538-4006 HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against St. Paul Teachers' Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heartware International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed on January 22, 2016, a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint claims that the Company and two of our executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about, among other things, the Company's response to the June 2014 FDA warning letter, the development of the MVAD System and the acquisition of Valtech. The Complaint claims that the disclosure of the purportedly false and misleading statements caused the price of the Company's stock to drop, and seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock during the Class Period. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. "As a result we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and manufactures miniaturized implantable heart pumps, or ventricular assist devices, to treat patients suffering from advanced heart failure. HIALEAH PARK: "Jordan" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay -------------------------------------------------- Dawn Jordan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. South Florida Racing Association, LLC d/b/a Hialeah Park Casino, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21893-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2016) seeks damages and relief, including liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs and expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a casino where the Plaintiff worked as a poker dealer and was by tipped employees. Defendant was paid below the statutorily required minimum wage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 463-2001 Facsimile: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com - and - Chad E. Levy, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com HOUSTON BEER: "Reissig" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Brigette Reissig on behalf of herself individually, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Houston Beer Ventures I, L.L.C. d/b/a World of Beer, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01517 (S.D. Tex., May 31, 2016), seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid, pursuant to and for failure to pay minimum wage for Plaintiff individually, and all others similarly situated, in the course of their employment with the Defendants, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). World of Beer is your local craft beer tavern offering music, beers, and more. According to the complaint, Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out an illegal pattern and practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices regarding compensation due to Plaintiff and to all others similarly situated for hours worked, but not recorded or paid. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Williams, Esq, THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (832) 230 4125 Facsimile: (832) 230 5130 IMS HEALTH: "ARCare" Sues Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------- ARCare d/b/a Parkin Drug, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMS Health Inc. Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00080-JLH (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant sent an unsolicited advertisement via fax to Plaintiff's machine without prior express invitation or permission. ARcare is an Arkansas non-profit corporation located in Augusta, Arkansas. It owns and operates the Parkin Drug Store and the Bald Knob Medical Clinic. IMS Health Inc. is a Connecticut entity that features global information and technology services that help improve performance and protect patient privacy. IMS Health Inc. owns Healthcare Data Solutions. Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 2800 Cantrell Rd., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Donato" Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case 2:16-cv-00302- NVW) was filed on or about February 2, 2016, in the Arizona District Court, against us and certain of our current and former officers. This complaint was brought as a purported class action, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend this claim. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $45MM Cash Payment Anticipated in Q2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICPT) said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, Intercept had cash, cash equivalents and investment securities available for sale of approximately $556.9 million, compared to $628.1 million as of December 31, 2015. The cash payment for the $45 million net expense for the settlement of the purported class action lawsuit is anticipated to be made in the second quarter of 2016. Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat non-viral, progressive liver diseases. KEMPER SPORTS: "Stapleton" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Stapleton, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., The Mosaic Company, d/b/a Streamsong Resort, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01305-VMC-TBM, (M.D. Fla., May 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid and underpaid wages and other damages under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Stapleton has been working as a high end golf caddie and player guide for Defendants' luxury golf resort. He did not receive wages but instead was paid caddie fees charge from patron's payments. Plaintiff is represented by: Penn A. Dodson, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON, P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 961-7639 Fax: (646) 998-8051 Email: penn@andersondodson.com KLX ENERGY: "Reed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- William Christopher Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. KLX Energy Services, LLC and WCW, LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-00552-JRG, (E.D. Tex. May 24, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages still owing, damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. WCW, LLC, now KLX Energy Services, LLC, is an oilfield services company providing various cased hole services such as logging, perforating, and pipe recovery where Reed worked as engineer or technical field supervisor. Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Porter, Esq. PORTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 3311 Woods Blvd. Tyler, TX 75707 Tel: (903) 561-5144 Fax: (903) 705-6253 Email: greg@gregporterlaw.com KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: "McKinnon" Suit to Recover Illegal Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------------- West McKinnon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01664-CWH, (D.S.C. May 24, 2016), seeks overtime wages, monetary and liquidated damages, injunctive relief, pre- judgment interest, attorney fees and costs and such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South Carolina providing high-speed internet, cable television and telephone services to customers in South Carolina where Plaintiff currently works as a cable installation technician. McKinnon alleges that his pay was subjected to illegal deductions and that he was denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: J. Scott Falls, Esq. Ashley L. Falls FALLS LEGAL, LLC 245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 737-6040 Facsimile: (843) 737-6140 E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com ashley@falls-legal.com KNOWLES CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Held in Audience IPO Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for May 6, 2016, in the Audience IPO-Related Litigation. On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County against Audience, the members of its board of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters of Audience's initial public offering ("IPO"). An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Audience's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors of Audience and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other grounds. The court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class. A trial had been scheduled for January 25, 2016 however, on July 23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the action was reached, subject to approval of the court. On October 19, 2015, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the court and as of March 31, 2016, none of the members of the class have opted out of, or objected to, the settlement. A final settlement approval hearing had been scheduled for May 6, 2016. If the court approves the settlement, Audience's insurance carriers will pay $6.0 million to the class in exchange for releases. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement and class members will not opt out of the settlement and file individual actions. As of March 31, 2016, the Company has accrued $6.0 million of legal reserves with a corresponding accounts receivable amount of $6.0 million on Knowles Consolidated Balance Sheet. More information on the case is available at: http://www.audiencesecuritiessettlement.com/ Knowles Corporation (NYSE: KN) is a market leader and global supplier of advanced micro-acoustic, audio processing, and specialty component solutions, serving the mobile consumer electronics, communications, medical, military, aerospace, and industrial markets. On July 1, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of common stock ("Shares") of Audience, Inc. ("Audience"). The financial results of Audience were included in the Company's consolidated statements of comprehensive earnings and statement of cash flows beginning July 1, 2015 and the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2015. KNOWLES CORPORATION: July 29 Hearing in Audience Acquisition Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court is expected to hold a final settlement hearing on July 29, 2016, in Audience Acquisition-Related Litigation. Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similar class action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition of Audience were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against the members of Audience's board of directors and the Company, among others. The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action. The complaints allege that the members of Audience's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Audience shareholders in connection with the proposed acquisition and that the Company aided and abetted these alleged violations. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the acquisition, as well as, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. In June 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle providing for the settlement of the litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"). Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the claims in the litigation have merit or that any supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplemental and amended disclosures in its statement in support of the acquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The settlement is subject to final approval by the court and members of the class may opt out of, or object to, the settlement. Notices summarizing the terms of the settlement have been circulated to Audience shareholders and the court is expected to hold a final settlement hearing on July 29, 2016. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the court will approve the settlement. As of March 31, 2016, the Company has accrued $0.5 million of legal reserves on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Knowles Corporation (NYSE: KN) is a market leader and global supplier of advanced micro-acoustic, audio processing, and specialty component solutions, serving the mobile consumer electronics, communications, medical, military, aerospace, and industrial markets. On July 1, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of common stock ("Shares") of Audience, Inc. ("Audience"). The financial results of Audience were included in the Company's consolidated statements of comprehensive earnings and statement of cash flows beginning July 1, 2015 and the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2015. LA PARIS CAFE: "Casanova" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Fernando G. Casanova, Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. La Paris Cafe Corp., a Florida Corporation, Odalys Gonzalez, an individual, Lazaro Gonzalez, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21917-JEM, (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. La Paris Cafe is a Florida corporation operating a restaurant in Miami-Dade County where Casanova was employed. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 375-9510 Fax: (305) 375-9511 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Shabazz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Shabazz and Eliezer Suarez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03889, (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks all wages due, overtime wages, interest, costs and disbursements and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Courtney Shabazz and Eliezer Suarez are former warehouse workers and sales-floor associates who worked for Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retail hardwood flooring store in Bronx, New York. Defendant allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff their full overtime wages. Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Madzelan, Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 420-9300 MAGNA CHEK: Intersol Seeks Certification of Class in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned INTERSOL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. MAGNA CHEK INC., a Michigan corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05789 (N.D. Ill.), files with the Court its motion for class certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Plaintiff proposes this class definition: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice. Intersol asserts that the Defendants sent it and others a standardized form advertisement. Intersol anticipates that the proposed class definition will change after discovery defines the precise contours of the class and the advertisements that were sent. Intersol asks for leave to submit a brief and other evidence in support of the Motion after discovery about the class elements has been completed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=StH6UnUw The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com MALABAR INVESTMENTS: "Torres" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Malabar Investments, Inc., and Does 1- 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC621848 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016), seeks declaratory judgement, damages and restitution, and penalties, pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide off- duty meal periods, provide and authorize rest periods, pay wages, for all hours worked, timely pay all wages owed upon termination and provide accurate itemized wage statements. Malabar Investments is a leading India-focused investment firm founded in 2008 and backed by partners who collectively manage over $15B in assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507 8525 Facsimile: (818) 507 8588 E-mail: Vasche@KJTLawGroup.com MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: "Bishop-Bristol" Suit Transferred to Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Bishop-Bristol, on behalf of the Arthur J. Gallagher & Company 401 (k) Savings and Thrift Plan and all other similarly situated ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans, Plaintiff, v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00139 (January 29, 2016), has been transferred to the United States District Court of Massachusetts on May 26, 2016, Case No. 3:11-cv-30235-MGM. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoinment from further violations, equitable relief, damages, disgorgement of profits, equitable lien, constructive trust, attorney fees and expenses and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and for breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff is a participant in the Arthur J. Gallagher & Company Savings and Thrift Plan and allege that the Defendant made undisclosed, excessive, and unreasonable compensation from plan assets. Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 Email: rizard@izardnoble.com mkindall@izardnoble.com Defendant is represented by : Daniel R. Thies, Esq. Joel S. Feldman, Esq. Mark B Blocker, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 853-7571 Fax: (312) 853-7036 Email: dthies@sidley.com - and - Jill M. O'Toole, Esq. SHIPMAN & GOODWIN One Constitution Plaza 18th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-1919 Tel: (860) 251-5909 Fax: (860) 251-5218 Email: jotoole@goodwin.com MASTEC INC: Two-Week Trial Period Set in March 2017 --------------------------------------------------- MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the District Court has scheduled a two-week trial period beginning in March 2017 pending its ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc. In May 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jos‚ R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as defendants. In August 2015, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed in October 2015. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and other statements, in each case with respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the Audit Committee's independent internal investigation. The amended complaint seeks damages stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to have suffered as a result of purchasing Company securities at an allegedly inflated market price. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the District Court has scheduled a two-week trial period beginning in March 2017 pending its ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. MCSS REST: Faces "Mendez" Suit in E.D.N.Y ----------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against MCSS Rest. Corp. The case is captioned Catalino Mendez, Eduardo Chocoj, and Israel Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MCSS Rest. Corp., jointly and severally; AL-KEN Corp., d/b/a Cross Bay Diner; Miko Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Parkview Diner; Michael Siderakis, jointly and severally; Christos Siderakis, jointly and severally, and Konstantinos Siklas, jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02746 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016). MCSS is a restaurant located in Howard Beach, New York. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. MDL 2724: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Actions to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Tulsa Firefighters Health & Welfare Trust, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, Nina Diamond, Twin Cities Pipe Trades Welfare Fund, Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, Edward Carpinelli, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20 Insurance Trust Fund and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund on May 19, 2016, asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order transferring and centralizing all currently filed and subsequent "tag along" class actions alleging anticompetitive conduct in the markets for generic digoxin and doxycycline to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. The class actions are: -- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund v. Lannett Company, Inc. Case No. 2:16-cv-00990 (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent W. Landau Gary I. Smith HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA, 19106 Tel. (215) 985-3270 Fax. (215) 985-3271 Email: blandau@hausfeld.com gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel. (415) 633-1908 Fax. (415) 358-4980 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Tel. (202) 540-7200 Fax. (202) 540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Fax: (212) 779-0028 Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Allergan PLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01371 (E.D. Pa., March 25, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: 610/660-8000 Fax: 610/660-8080 Email: mhenzel@henzellaw.com - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'mara, Esq. Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 Email: davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com xanb@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com - and - Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 Telephone: 217/544-1771 Fax: 217/544-9894 -- Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC, Defendant, Case No 2:16-cv-01388 (E.D. Pa., March 25, 2016) and; -- UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02169 (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2016). Plaintiffs in these two cases are represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 567-6565 Fax: (215) 568-5872 Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Mark Goldman, Esq. Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN, SCARLATO & PENNY P.C. Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 342-0700 Email: goldman@lawgsp.com scarlato@lawgsp.com -- Pipe Trades Services MN, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01534 (E.D. Pa., April 4, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel.: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com ralockridge@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq. Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 814-6750 Fax: (215) 814-6764 Email: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com jgrabar@bolognese-law.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 Email: jkodroff@srkw-law.com jmacoretta@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com -- Edward Carpinelli, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01954 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald J. Rodos, Esq. Chad A. Carder BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 Email: GRodos@barrack.com JGittleman@barrack.com Ccarder@barrack.com - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Travis L. Manfredi, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 Email: rick@saveri.com cadio@saveri.com travis@saveri.com - and - Randy Renick, Esq. HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Ave. Pasadena, CA 91001 Telephone: 626 585-9600 Facsimile: 626 585-9610 Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. Lisa A. Sleboda, Esq. Wendy K. Angulo, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 3771 Meadowcrest Drive Las Vegas, NV 89121 Telephone: (781) 856-7650 Facsimile: (702) 852-5726 Email: rbonsignore@class-actions.us lsleboda@class-actions.us wangulo@class-actions.us - and - Allan Steyer, Esq. D. Scott Macrae, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 421-3400 Fax: (415) 421-2234 Email: asteyer@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com -- Fraternal Order Of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02031 (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203 Weston, FL 33326 Tel: (561) 270-0795 Email: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Tel: 610-891-9880 Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl. New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 722-7053 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Nina Diamond, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02077 (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by: Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (973) 877-3819 (267) 314-7980 Fax: (973) 623-0858 Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 14 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: 516-699-8890 Facsimile: 516-699-8968 Email: joseph@sarrafgentile.com -- Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02191, (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2016). Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Bolognese Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 320 Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 814-6750 Email: jgrabar@bolognese-law.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com raloclridge@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 - and - William H. London, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201. Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Tel: (224) 632-4500 Fax: (224) 632-4521 Email: wlondon@klmlaw.com - and - Christian M. Sande CHRISTIAN SANDE LLC 310 Clifton Avenue, 18 00 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Tel: (612) 387-1430 Fax: (612) 677-3078 Email: Christian@christiansande.com The actions accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline. According to the Plaintiffs, centralization of the Related Actions will promote the goals of 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 by conserving judicial resources, reducing litigation costs, preventing potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, eliminating duplicative discovery, and permitting the cases to proceed more efficiently. Lannett Company Inc. is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline. Allergan PLC is a global pharmaceutical company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and distributor of generic digoxin. Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma. MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: "Carter" Suit Moved to E.D. Ark. ---------------------------------------------------- Sandra Carter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Meridian Financial Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 60CV-16-01941, was removed from Circuit Court of Pulaski County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00296-DPM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr. Meridian Financial provides third-party collection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy James Cullen, Esq. CULLEN & CO., PLLC Post Office Box 3255 Little Rock, AR 72203-3255 Telephone: (501) 370 4800 E-mail: tim@cullenandcompany.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley R. Hudson, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3740 Telephone: (501) 975 3116 Facsimile: (501) 975 3001 E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com MERITOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Actions in Michigan ------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the company was served in March 2016, with a complaint filed against the company and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint is a proposed class action and alleges that the company violated federal and state antitrust and other laws in connection with a former business of the company's that manufactured and sold exhaust systems for automobiles. The alleged class is comprised of persons and entities that purchased or leased a passenger vehicle during a specified time period. In April the Company was served with a virtually identical suit also naming the company as a defendant on behalf of a purported class of automobile dealers. The company is reviewing the complaints and developing its response and intends to vigorously defend the claims. At this point, the company cannot estimate the ultimate impact on the company, and there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015, respectively. On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP. On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect service of the complaint on the Company or any other named defendant." "These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that Mavenir's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted such alleged fiduciary breaches. On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action filed amended complaints, neither of which names us as a defendant. The operative complaint in the consolidated action, filed on January 22, 2016, names our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a defendant. That complaint asserts a single cause of action against our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to certain disclosures made to former Mavenir shareholders in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir. None of the complaints stated any amount of damages. "On April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered into a settlement term sheet which contemplates the settlement of the consolidated action and the release of various persons and entities, including but not limited to the Company and the defendants in the consolidated action (including our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir), in consideration for which defendants and their insurer(s) will cause the sum of $3 million to be paid into a common fund for the class. The proposed settlement remains subject to the approval of the Court of Chancery, which has not yet scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlement. "Also on April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered into a stipulation and proposed order regarding the payment of mootness attorneys' fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action, pertaining to certain claims mooted at an earlier stage of the consolidated action. The Court of Chancery granted that proposed order on April 8, 2016. "Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations, we cannot predict with certainty any such impact and whether the Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement of the consolidated action or the outcome of such litigation." MITEL NETWORKS: Approval of Stockholder Actions Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Mitel Networks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement reached in a consolidated stockholder class action remains subject to court approval. The Company said, "In March and April, 2015, we were named a defendant in three purported stockholder class actions, two of which have been consolidated, that challenge the acquisition of Mavenir. Specifically, two stockholder actions challenging the acquisition of Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015, respectively. On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP. On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect service of the complaint on the Company or any other named defendant." "These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that Mavenir's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted such alleged fiduciary breaches. On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action filed amended complaints, neither of which names us as a defendant. The operative complaint in the consolidated action, filed on January 22, 2016, names our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a defendant. That complaint asserts a single cause of action against our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty relating to certain disclosures made to former Mavenir shareholders in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir. None of the complaints stated any amount of damages. "On April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered into a settlement term sheet which contemplates the settlement of the consolidated action and the release of various persons and entities, including but not limited to the Company and the defendants in the consolidated action (including our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir), in consideration for which defendants and their insurer(s) will cause the sum of $3 million to be paid into a common fund for the class. The proposed settlement remains subject to the approval of the Court of Chancery, which has not yet scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlement. "Also on April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered into a stipulation and proposed order regarding the payment of mootness attorneys' fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action, pertaining to certain claims mooted at an earlier stage of the consolidated action. The Court of Chancery granted that proposed order on April 8, 2016. "Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations, we cannot predict with certainty any such impact and whether the Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement of the consolidated action or the outcome of such litigation." MP 3 CONSTRUCTION: "Carruega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorenzo Carrauega, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MP 3 Construction Services, LLC, a Florida limited Liability Company, and Jose Mendoza, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00421-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, from at least November 2015 and continuing through February 2016, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at rate of one and one-half time Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week. MP 3 Construction is a general contractors company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4423 Del Prado Blvd S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549 6689 E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com NASDAQ INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order granting Nasdaq's motion to dismiss the complaint. The period during which an appeal of the decision may be filed has not yet expired. NASDAQ INC: Appeal in City of Providence Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014," the Company said. "In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations." "We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. The court heard oral argument on the motion on June 18, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. "The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously." NASDAQ INC: Oral Argument Heard in "Lanier" Case Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has heard oral argument in the appeal in the "Lanier" class action. The Company is named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches. The Company said, "On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January 16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff has appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on March 3, 2016." "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously." NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shareholder Litigation Pending --------------------------------------------------- Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a shareholder litigation. On June 2, 2015, a shareholder class action complaint captioned City of St Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., 15 Civ. 61170. (S.D. Fla.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against us and certain of our executive officers asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On October 16, 2015, an amended class action complaint was filed that adds (i) claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and (ii) additional defendants, comprising our former Chief Financial Officer, certain directors and underwriters for our secondary public offering of our common stock on March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the offering materials contained materially false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the negative impact of declining interest rates on our overall financial results and the contrasting impact of declining interest rates on our servicing business on the one hand and our originations business on the other. The amended complaint also alleges that between May 8, 2014 and May 4, 2015, the Company and certain of the individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements to investors designed to create the perception of growth in our originations business. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our common stock and unspecified damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend the action. NIKIL INC: "Warciak" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Warciak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nikil, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-05729, was removed from Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05731 to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Thomas M. Durkin. Nikil is an organization in the custom computer programming services industry located in Palo Alto, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven P. Mandell, Esq. MANDELL MENKES LLC One North Franklin, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 251-1001 E-mail: smandell@mandellmenkes.com ON DECK CAPITAL: Court Approved Schedule for Motion to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------------- On Deck Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has approved a schedule allowing the defendants 60 days to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action lawsuit. Two separate putative class actions were filed in August 2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us, certain of our executive officers, our directors and certain or all of the underwriters of our initial public offering. The suits allege that the registration statement and prospectus for our initial public offering contained materially false and misleading statements regarding, or failed to disclose, certain information in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The suits seek a determination that the case is a proper class action and/or certification of the plaintiff as a class representative, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and/or unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs. On February 18, 2016, the court issued an order (1) consolidating the two cases, (2) selecting the lead plaintiff and (3) appointing lead class counsel. On March 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On April 14, 2016, the court approved a schedule allowing the defendants 60 days to file a motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff to file any opposition within 60 days of the filing of the motion to dismiss and allowing the defendants to file a reply within 30 days after the filing of plaintiff's opposition. "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these consolidated matters, although at this time we cannot predict the outcome," the Company said. On Deck is an online platform for small business lending. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action complaint remains pending. On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims. On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements regarding the interim results and termination of the Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion. Although management believes that the claims lack merit and intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the outcome. As this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney's fees. Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the treatment of obesity. OVASCIENCE INC: Two Class Actions in Massachusetts Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate two class action cases and appoint co-lead plaintiffs. The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Superior Court") against us, several of our officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on public offering of our common stock. The plaintiffs purport to represent those persons who purchased shares of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our January 2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements." "On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of removal with the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"). On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016. On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. "On February 26, 2016, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging substantially the same claims against the same parties as the action filed on October 9, 2015. On April 4, 2016, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate the two cases and appoint co-lead plaintiffs, and ordered the co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint within sixty days. "We believe that the consolidated action is without merit and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit." OvaScience is a global fertility company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of new fertility treatment options for women. PACIFIC OCEAN TRANS: "Barnwell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- La Robert Barnwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pacific Ocean Transportation, Inc., a California Company, the Defendant, Case No. BC622164 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid hourly wage or minimum wage plus liquidated damages in an additional amount equal to the total amount of wages unlawfully withheld during the Class Period for truck drivers' rest period, pursuant to California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not receive minimum wage for their on-duty time when they spent taking statutory rest breaks and on Non Driving Tasks. Pacific Ocean Transportation is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business from Compton, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 512 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 E-mail: cja@ackerrnanntilajef.com - and - Jonathan Melmed MELMED LAW GROUP 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824 3828 Facsimile: (310) 862 6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com PENNANTPARK FLOATING: Merger Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Pennantpark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the litigation in connection with its acquisition of MCG Capital Corporation has been dismissed. The Company said, "On August 18, 2015, we completed the acquisition of MCG Capital Corporation, or MCG, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2015, by and among MCG, our Investment Adviser and the Company. As a result of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, MCG was ultimately merged with and into PFLT Funding II, LLC with PFLT Funding II, LLC as the surviving company." "Between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, a number of putative class action lawsuits were filed by former stockholders of MCG challenging our acquisition of MCG in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint alleged that MCG's directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, not protecting against their supposed conflicts of interest and failing to take steps to maximize the consideration to be received by MCG's former stockholders in our acquisition of MCG. The consolidated complaint also alleged that the Company and the Investment Adviser aided and abetted the MCG directors' purported breach of fiduciary duties. We believe that the consolidated complaint is without merit. Subsequent to September 30, 2015, the litigation in connection with our acquisition of MCG was dismissed." PERFUME CENTER: Faces "Ahmad" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Perfume Center of America, Inc. The case is captioned Waqar Ahmad, Upendra Ghimire, Jose Fabian and Larry Cavanaugh, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Perfume Center of America, Inc. and Kanak Golia, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02748 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016). Perfume Center engages in the wholesale distribution of perfume and perfume related products in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiffs appears pro se. PET CLUB: Faces "Thornsburry" Suit in D. Ariz. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Pet Club LLC. The case is captioned Lacey Thornsburry and Valentina Woodruff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pet Club LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Ahwatukee LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Arrowhead LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Avondale LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Casa Grande LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Cave Creek LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Chandler Heights LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Chandler LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Chino Valley LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Pet Club Cotton Lane LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Desert Ridge LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Dobson LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club East Tucson LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Gilbert LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Glendale LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Las Sendas LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Laveen LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Lincoln LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Marana LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Maricopa LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Mill LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Moon Valley LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club N Gilbert LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club Northern LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club North Mesa LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Pet Club North Scottsdale LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01604-JZB (D. Ariz., May 24, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. John Z Boyle. Pet Club supplies Arizona with a variety of premium pet products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad Alan Denton, Esq. Timothy Farnsworth Coons, Esq. DENTON PETERSON PC 1930 N Arboleda Rd., Ste. 200 Mesa, AZ 85213 Telephone: (480) 325 9900 Facsimile: (480) 655 7099 E-mail: Brad@DentonPeterson.com Timothy@DentonPeterson.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Lost Bid to Decertify Classes in "Barrera" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court filed a civil minutes relating to several proceedings before the Hon. Christina A. Snyder in the lawsuit titled LOREAN BARRERA v. PHARMAVITE, LLC, Case No. 2:11-cv-04153-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal.). The Court denies Pharmavite's motion to decertify the classes, denies Pharmavite's motion for judicial estoppel, denies Pharmavite's motion for summary judgment, and denies the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff Lorean Barrera, a secretary at an auto body shop, filed the putative class action in connection with the marketing and sales of Pharmavite's "TripleFlex" dietary supplements. On November 19, 2014, the Court certified these two classes: (1) UCL California-Only Class: All consumers in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Pharmavite's TripleFlex Products; and (2) CLRA California-Only Class: All consumers in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Pharmavite's TripleFlex Products. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IXsldpWl RAINBOW ENTERPRISES: "Pesenecker" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Pesenecker and Chase Crews, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Rainbow Enterprises, Inc., BHHG Services, Inc., Big Boy of Flat Rock, Inc., Samir M. Saleh and Glen D. Linson, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11886-RHC-RSW, (E.D. Mi., May 25, 2016), seeks unpaid wages owed, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act. Pesenecker worked as a bus boy and a dishwasher for the Defendants' restaurant located at 27050 Telegraph Rd. Flat Rock, MI 48134, while Crews worked as a Cook. Plaintiffs claim that they were denied overtime pay. Pesenecker Seeks Certification of FLSA Class The Plaintiffs have filed their motion for conditional class certification of this class: All current and former restaurant employees who worked for Defendants at 27050 Telegraph Rd, Flat Rock, MI 48134, who worked in excess of forty (40) in one workweek and were not paid 1.5 times their pay rate for the hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order authorizing the dissemination of Collective Group notice to all similarly situated persons pursuant to the "opt-in" mechanism for collective actions authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act; permit a 90- day opt-in period for additional plaintiffs to join this litigation and order the Defendant to provide each Collective Group Member's employee ID number, last known telephone number and e-mail address, and the last four digits of their Social Security number within 30 days from the entry of an appropriate Order; appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for all employees, who join the Action without counsel of their own; and granting other relief. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HuodrgEC The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Omar Badr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Telephone: (734) 692-9200 Facsimile: (734) 692-9201 E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com REALOGY HOLDINGS: Strader Second Amended Complaint Filed -------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the case, Strader and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), have filed a second amended complaint. This is a purported class action brought by two California residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section 8(a) of RESPA. Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January 31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either (a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring business to one another under agreements or arrangements that are prohibited by RESPA. Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements. On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On April 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. "We expect to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the near future," the Company said. The case raises significant and various previously unlitigated claims. As with all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties. We believe that we and the joint venture have complied with RESPA, the regulations promulgated thereunder and existing regulatory guidance. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies. Given the early stage of this case and the novel claims and issues presented, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably potential losses for this litigation. The Company will vigorously defend this action. REED HEIN: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT, Wages, Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Anderson and Tracey Anderson, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Reed Hein & Associates LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Timeshare Exit Team, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00785 (W.D. Wash., May 27, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, unpaid employer taxes, unpaid compensation benefits, unpaid benefits, compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Reed Hein & Associates LLC, operating as Timeshare Exit Team, is a Washington limited liability company with its corporate headquarters in Lynnwood, Washington. It is a consumer protection firm that assists timeshare owners dissolving their timeshare contracts. Michael Anderson and Tracey Anderson worked as client advisors for the Defendant. They claim to be misclassified as independent contractors thus denied the benefits of regular employees. Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Heyrich, Esq. Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. Rachel M. Emens, Esq. HKMEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 838-2504 Fax: (206) 838-2505 Email: dheyrich@hkm.com jrittereiser@hkm.com remens@hkm.com - and - Peter Stutheit, WSBA #32090 STUTHEIT KALIN LLC 308 SW First Avenue, Suite 325 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 493-7488 Fax: (503) 715-5670 Email: peter@stutheitkalin.com RETROPHIN INC: June 10 Final Settlement Approval Hearing -------------------------------------------------------- Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has scheduled a final approval hearing for June 10, 2016, for the settlement of a class action lawsuit. On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against the same defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants' public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013 through September 30, 2014. In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the two related actions. On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4, 2015, which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and Mr. Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson, Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants. On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully- briefed as of October 29, 2015. On December 1, 2015, counsel jointly informed the Court that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement, subject to Court approval. On January 29, 2016, the parties filed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and supporting papers, including a stipulation of settlement. On February 2, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for June 10, 2016. Any amounts owed by the Company would be covered by Director and Officer Insurance. RGS FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Zolandz" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Zolandz moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint in the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RGS FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00650-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff also asks the Court both to stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Rb6gpQj The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com RICHARD SNYDER: "Nappier" Suit Moved to W.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------- Tamara Nappier, as mother and next friend of Takarie Nappier, a minor child, on behalf of Takarie Nappier and a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Richard Snyder, individually; Darnell Earley, individually; Gerald Ambrose, individually; Daniel Wyant, individually and in his official capacity; Liane Shekter Smith, individually and in her official capacity; Stephen Busch, individually and in his official capacity; Patrick Cook, individually and in his official capacity; Michael Prysby, individually and in his official capacity; Bradley Wurfel, individually and in his official capacity; Eden Wells, individually and in her official capacity; Nick Lyon, individually and in his official capacity; Nancy Peeler, individually and in her official capacity; Robert Scott, individually and in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case no. 16-000071-MM, was removed from the Court of Claims, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division). The Western District Court assigned Case no. 1:16-cv- 00636 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant Stephen Busch is represented by: Philip A. Grashoff Jr., Esq. KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI PC 36700 Woodward Ave., Ste. 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 646 2073 E-mail: pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com ROSA MEXICANO: "Huerta" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay --------------------------------------------------- Francisco Huerta, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. West 62 Operating LLC, Rosa Mexicano Murray, LLC, Rosa Mexicano USQ, LLC, Fenix Rest. Inc. and Howard Greenstone, Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-03876 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2016) seeks unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip credit, unpaid wages due to time shaving, unreimbursed business-related expenses and maintenance/repair costs, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate a restaurant under the common trade name Rosa Mexicano in four locations in New York City with Howard Greenstone as owner and principal officer. Huerta was hired as a deliveryman for the Rosa Mexicano Lincoln Center location. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 ROSKO HOLDINGS: "Sangworrakan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suthipat Sangworrakan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rosko Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a SONG), Andrew Aparicio Jerro, Ana Popermhem, and Ariel Aparicio, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02745 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the "spread of hours" order of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants without any compensation for any of the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff for any hours he worked. Song is a Thai restaurant owned by Andrew Aparicio Jerro, Ana Popermhem, and Ariel Aparicio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com ROUSE PROPERTIES: Stockholders File Action Against Brookfield ------------------------------------------------------------- Rouse Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that certain Company stockholders filed on April 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the members of the Special Committee, Brookfield Asset Management, BPY and the Brookfield entities party to the merger agreement (Brookfield Asset Management, BPY and such other Brookfield entities being referred to as the "Brookfield Parties"), alleging that: (i) the Brookfield Parties, as purported controlling stockholders of the Company, breached their fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by causing the Company to agree to the merger transactions for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair process; (ii) the Special Committee members breached their fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unreasonable process; and (iii) the Brookfield Parties, in the alternative, aided and abetted the Special Committee members' alleged breaches. In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Brookfield Parties used their purported "control" of the Company to obtain a below-market price, that the Special Committee was "tainted by conflicts," and that the Special Committee's attempts to seek an alternative buyer were "perfunctory." Among other relief, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the merger transactions, rescissionary damages in the event the merger transactions are consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On February 25, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive merger agreement (and other related agreements) to be acquired by affiliates of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. ("Brookfield Asset Management" and, together with its affiliates, "Brookfield") for $18.25 per share in an all-cash transaction, a portion of which may be paid out as a special dividend. The Company believes the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and the Special Committee intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. S & A UNIFIED: "Shulyar" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------- Mariya Shulyar, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. S & A Unified Home Care, Inc. and Angela Marduchayena, the Defendants, Case No. 154389/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 24, 2016), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL), New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR), New York Public Health Law and New York City Administrative Code (NYC). According to the complaint, the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of eight hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. S&A is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com SAGE PAYMENT: Faces "ARcare" Suit in E.D. Ark. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Sage Payment Solutions Inc. The case is captioned ARcare Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sage Payment Solutions Inc., and Sage Software Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00079-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr. Sage Payment provides payment processing products and services to entrepreneurs, small businesses, and midsized and larger businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Craig, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 321 8500 Facsimile: (501) 312 8505 E-mail: jcraig@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS: "Beck" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- Doug Beck, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Saint-Gobain Containers Inc., an unknown business entity, Ardagh Glass Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case no. BC603229, was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court assigned Case no. 2:16-cv-03638 to the proceeding. Saint-Gobain designs, manufactures and distributes building and high-performance materials. The Plaintiff appears pro se. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint remains pending. On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit). Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's report. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Parmelee and Benson Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16- cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaints in the Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with the Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek damages and other relief. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Securus Technologies, Inc. The case is captioned Juan Romero and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Securus Technologies, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal., May 27, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller. Securus is an American for-profit prison technology company based in Dallas, Texas The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rivera" Suit in D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------- Angel Rivera, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. a Utah Corporation, and John and Jane Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03112-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., May 31, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan. Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson Philip D. Stern, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1329 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 0866 E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com philip@sternthomasson.com SENTRY SURVEILLANCE: "Chemaly" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Chemaly, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Sentry Surveillance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01723-WSD, (N.D. Ga., May 26, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation with liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sentry is a Georgia corporation that manufactures, sells, installs and services surveillance equipment and systems to customers throughout the United States. Its principal place of business is located in Kennesaw, Georgia. Plaintiff worked as an inside sales employee for the Defendants and claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Mixon, Esq. J. Stephen Mixon, Esq. Alex R. Roberson, Esq. MILLAR & MIXON, LLC 1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30349 Telephone: (770) 955-0100 Facsimile: (678) 999-5039 SETERUS INC: Acquired Unlawful Profit, "Rozwadowska" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jolanta Rozwadowska, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Seterus, Inc. f/k/a IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., and QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc. f/k/a NGLS Insurance Services, Inc., the Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 2016CH07135 (Cook Cty. Ct., May 24, 2016), seeks restitution for Defendants' unlawful conduct, as well as interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully acquired the profits from the force-placed insurance policies by appreciating and knowing that the fees imposed on Rozwadowska and Class members were more expensive than those available in the open market and retaining the benefits conferred on them. Seterus is a fully integrated loan servicing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. Amalia S. Newton, Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. DeRe, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 Facsimile: (312) 440 4180 E-mail: www.attomeyzim.com tom@attorneyzim.com amy@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorneyzim.com - and - Arthur C. Czaja, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA & ASSOCIATES 7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue Niles, IL 60714 Telephone: (847) 647 2106 Facsimile: (847) 647-2057 E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com SHIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Orozi" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Shift Technologies Inc. The case is captioned Michael Orozi, Eric Holt, Loretta Greene, and William Alitsky, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Shift Technologies Inc., Shift Operations LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 552307 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 31, 2016). Shift Technologies is a pioneering technology and business consulting firm that enables organizations meet their digital transformation agenda. SIEMENS INDUSTRY: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT --------------------------------------------------------- Rodrigo Jimenez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC621487 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 24, 2016), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees or former employees within the State of California a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked more than five hours in a workday, and a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees worked in excess often 10 hours in a work day. The Defendants also failed to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods. The Defendants are manufacturers of switchgear and switchboard apparatus. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James Alexander De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553 3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com SINGLECARE SERVICES: Comprehensive Health Files Suit in S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Singlecare Services LLC. The case is captioned Comprehensive Health Care Systems, Inc., a Florida Corporation individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. John Does 1-12 and Singlecare Services LLC, Case No. 9:16-cv-80877-BB (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Beth Bloom. SingleCare provides open marketplace of trusted doctors and clear pricing that enables consumers to make smart decisions about their healthcare. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5501 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com SODEXO INC: "Riestra" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------- Maria Riestra, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sodexo, Inc., SDH Services West, LLC, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC616945, was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv- 03732 to the proceeding. Sodexo designs, manages, and delivers on-site, benefits and rewards, and personal and home services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Plaintiff appears pro se. SPARK ENERGY: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Melville Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit by John Melville was set on the Court's submission docket for May 2, 2016. John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breached its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for himself and the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016, Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss was set on the Court's submission docket for May 2, 2016. Spark Energy is an independent retail energy services company that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for natural gas and electricity. SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Amaya" Case ------------------------------------------------ Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a confidential settlement agreement has been reached in the lawsuit by Arturo Amaya. Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on May 22, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that certain door-to-door sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC allegedly engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the California Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act while marketing Spark Energy Gas, LLC's gas services to consumers in California. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. On September 29, 2015, Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and a motion to compel arbitration in the case of one of the named plaintiffs. On April 11, 2016 the Court issued an Order denying without prejudice Spark Energy Gas, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and denying the Motion to Dismiss. The Court also reset the date to hear any Motion for Class Certification that plaintiffs may file in this matter to August 5, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties attended a court-ordered mediation during which a confidential resolution of this matter was reached. The parties are currently in the process of preparing the corresponding confidential settlement agreement. "We expensed $0.5 million related to this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2016 in our condensed consolidated statement of operation, $0.5 million of which is in accrued liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2016," the Company said. Spark Energy is an independent retail energy services company that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for natural gas and electricity. SPRING MEADOWS: "Nwogwugwu" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Nwogwugwu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 141 Providence Lane, PA 19446, the Plaintiff, v. Spring Meadows at Landsdale, Inc., 1800 Walnut Street, Landsdale, PA 19446, Case No. 2:16-cv-02663-GJP (E.D. Penn., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Licensed Practical Nurse. Throughout the course of his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not properly compensated for his work. Spring Meadows is a full service assisted living community located in Lansdale Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Patrick Murphy Jr., Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC Eight Penn Center Suite 1803 1628 John F Kennedy Blvd Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 375 0961 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Shareholder Class Action Removed ------------------------------------------------- Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that a complaint was filed on March 4, 2016, in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock in the Company's underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On March 24, 2016, the Company removed the action to federal court in the District of Arizona. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, the case. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates as a healthy grocery store that offers fresh, natural and organic food that includes fresh produce, bulk foods, vitamins and supplements, grocery, meat and seafood, bakery, deli, dairy, frozen foods, body care and natural household items catering to consumers' growing interest in eating and living healthier. STATE FARM: "Cranfield" Breach of Contract Suit moved to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Cranfield individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-862285 (Ohio Com. Pleas, April 26, 2016), has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 26, 2016, Case No. 1:16-cv-01273-CAB. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, as well as all expenses of this action as a result of breach of contract over excessive depreciation deduction applied for his actual cash value payment attributable to the labor component of estimated repair costs. Cranfield filed for damage claims with State Farm for his house. State Farm Insurance is an insurance company with headquarters in One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, IL 61710. The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Tel: 440.352.3391 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com - and - R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A. 1600 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue W. Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: 216.781.1111 Email: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com dgoetz@weismanlaw.com - and - Robert C. Tucker, Esq. Karl A. Bekeny, Esq. Benjamin C. Sass‚, Esq. Paul L. Janowicz, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113-7213 Telephone: 216.592.5000 Facsimile: 216.592.5009 E-mail: robert.tucker@tuckerellis.com karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com benjamin.sasse@tuckerellis.com paul.janowicz@tuckerellis.com - and - James A. DeRoche GARSON JOHNSON LLC 1600 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: 216.696.9330 Email: jderoche@garson.com SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT: "Pinzon" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Basilio Juarez Pinzon and Claudio Patricio Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Summit Development Corp. d/b/a Summit Waterproofing & Restoration CO.; Kostas Fakiris; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 604025/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, pursuant to New York Labor Law (Labor Law) and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR). According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime compensation as required by applicable state law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Telexfree Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the TelexFree Litigation remains pending. On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH, United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit. An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending. TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC, an independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations. Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1, 2015, which remains pending before the court. Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to these purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted. TACOS AL CARBON: Violated FLSA, "Vigil" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------- Jose Vigil, individually and as class representative of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Tacos Al Carbon Of Greenacres, Inc., a Florida for Profit Corporation; and Victor H. Gonzalez, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80814- KAM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2016), seeks to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that have deprived Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees proper overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants' refusal to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members any overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week on and off the clock was and is repeated, willful and intentional. Tacos is doing business in Palm Beach County Florida as a seller of food and groceries including the restaurant located at Greenacres, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A. 824 W. Indiantown Road Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 691 9048 Facsimile: (866) 259 0719 E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com Carla@CopelandPA.com TANGOE INC: "Moleski" Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Sarah Moleski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and Gary R. Martino, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02957-KM-JBC, (D.N.J. May 24, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages for violation of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Tangoe failed to disclose that Defendants were manipulating the Company financial statements and lacked any internal controls rendering their publically made statements materially false and/or misleading. Moleski acquired Tangoe securities at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Tel: (973) 313-1887 Fax: (973) 833-0399 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com TARGET CORP: "Rizzo" Sues over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------- Salvatore Rizzo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Gregg W. Steinhafel and John J. Mulligan, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv- 01485-WMW-TNL, (D. Minn., May 24, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation currently operating general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S. Steinhafel and Mulligan served as CEO and CFO of Target respectively. Plaintiffs allege that Target failed to disclose details regarding its entry into the Canadian market when Target agreed to purchase leasehold interests in as many as 220 retail sites from Zellers, Inc. Canadian operations encountered problems and began to underperform investor expectations. Target revealed the Company would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. In response to this news, Target stock declined $1.63 per share, or 2.1 percent. Plaintiff purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Target at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the disclosures. Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------- TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a decision on the motion to dismiss the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., is expected in late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016. On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Chancery Court) against the General Partner, TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015 GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95 million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries, disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner, TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees. To the extent the claims are derivative, the Partnership would be the beneficiary of any monetary award. The Partnership does not expect legal fees or the impact of the decision on plaintiffs' other requests to be material. In April 2016, the Chancery Court held a hearing on the Partnership and other defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. A decision on the motion is expected in late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016. TC PIPELINES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------- TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a decision on the motion to dismiss the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., is expected in late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016. On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Chancery Court) against the General Partner, TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015 GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95 million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries, disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner, TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees. To the extent the claims are derivative, the Partnership would be the beneficiary of any monetary award. The Partnership does not expect legal fees or the impact of the decision on plaintiffs' other requests to be material. In April 2016, the Chancery Court held a hearing on the Partnership and other defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. A decision on the motion is expected in late second quarter of 2016 or early third quarter 2016. TD AMERITRADE: Appeal Filed in "Verdieck" Action ------------------------------------------------ TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiff in the "Verdieck" action related to Order Routing has filed a notice of appeal. Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief. The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the five lawsuits. On March 23, 2016, the District Judge entered an order dismissing all of the state law claims in the five actions, denying the motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case, and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. None of the plaintiffs in the other four actions filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff in the Verdieck case filed a notice of appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TD AMERITRADE: Accord in Reserve Yield Litigation Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has granted final approval to the settlement in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation. During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which is being liquidated. In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund. On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle the claims against them, subject to court approval. On March 26, 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims against the Company and its directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants, subject to definitive written terms that required court approval. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to make a cash contribution of $3.75 million toward a class settlement fund. On November 23, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and notices to class members. The Company paid its $3.75 million contribution to the class settlement fund on December 4, 2015. Notices to class members were mailed by the claims administrator on December 8, 2015. On March 10, 2016, the court entered an order and final judgment granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing all claims against the defendants. TEMPUR SEALY: Still Defends "Todd" Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013 On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The outcome of this case remains uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Tempur Sealy develops, manufactures, markets and distributes bedding products. TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Entered Into Binding Term Sheet ------------------------------------------------ Texas Roadhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company on March 1, 2016, entered into a binding Term Sheet to resolve alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act asserted on behalf of a purported class of employees. Once the settlement agreement is finalized, it will be subject to court approval. The Company said, "To cover the estimated costs of the settlement, including estimated payments to any opt-in members and class attorneys, as well as related settlement administration costs, we recorded a charge of $5.5 million ($3.4 million after-tax) during the 13 weeks ended March 29, 2016. The charge is recorded in general and administrative expenses in our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income. The actual amount of any settlement payment could vary from our estimate and will be subject to many factors including approval by the court, the claims process, and other matters typically associated with the settlement of class action litigation." Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is a growing restaurant company operating predominately in the casual dining segment. THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Faces "Adams" Suit Over ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe Adams, Individually, Plaintiff, v. Tharaldson Hospitality Development LLC A Foreign Limited Liability Company Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01150-JTM-KGG (D. Kan., May 26, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adams suffers from cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. Defendant owns or operates the Comfort Inn located at 9525 E Corporate Hills, Wichita, Kansas. Plaintiff alleges that their facilities are not accessible by persons with wheelchairs. Plaintiff is represented by: Pete M. Monismith, Esq. 3945 Forbes Ave., #175 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Tel: 724-610-1881 Fax: 412-258-1309 Email: pete@monismithlaw.com TIME INC: Rose Coulter-Owens Filed Class Action Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Time Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Rose Coulter-Owens has filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc. violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class member or actual damages. On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury from the alleged conduct. On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter- Owens replaced Susan Fox as the named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a subscription to TIME, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify the class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000 consumers. On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in opposition to their adversaries' motions. On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. TIME INC: To Defend Against "Perlin" Case ----------------------------------------- Time Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Coulter-Owens filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of the VRPA as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents who purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc. "We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters," the Company said. TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of federal securities claims. The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the acquired company violated various securities laws and that the acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees." "On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"), but on March 17, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The time in which the plaintiffs may seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet expired." TRUE RELIGION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against True Religion Apparel, Inc. The case is captioned Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. True Religion Apparel, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21940-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2016). True Religion designs, markets, sells, and distributes apparel under the True Religion Brand Jeans name worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431 1333 Facsimile: (786) 513 7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "Lisiecki" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Lisiecki moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint in the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE LISIECKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRUEACCORD CORP., and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00652-JPS (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff also asks the Court to both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9lvtTPdU The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com TUMI HOLDINGS: Class Action Filed Over Samsonite Merger ------------------------------------------------------- Tumi Holdings, Inc. on March 3, 2016, entered into a merger agreement with Samsonite International S.A. ("Samsonite") and PTL Acquisition Inc., pursuant to which Samsonite will acquire Tumi. Tumi said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that on March 15, 2016, a putative stockholder class action challenging the merger was filed in New Jersey Superior Court and was captioned Sun v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., et al., No. C-32-16 (N.J. Super.) (the "Sun State Court Action"). The Sun State Court Action alleged that the members of Tumi's board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, entering into the merger agreement with Samsonite at an inadequate price, failing to engage in an auction process, and failing to disclose all material information to Tumi's stockholders. The Sun State Court Action also alleged that Tumi and Samsonite aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On April 14, 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Sun State Court Action. On April 19, 2016, the same plaintiff who filed the Sun State Court Action, filed an action in the District of New Jersey, captioned Sun v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-02184- JMV-JBC (D. NJ.) (the "Sun Federal Court Action"). The Sun Federal Court Action makes only disclosure claims, alleging an individual claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended to date ("1934 Act") against Tumi and the members of its board, as well as an individual claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against Samsonite and the members of Tumi's board. Tumi and the board believes these claims are wholly without merit. Tumi Holdings, Inc. is a designer, producer and marketer of a comprehensive line of travel and business products and accessories in multiple categories. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Continues to Defend Wilder Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the Wilder Litigation. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motions in their entirety and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's memorandum, opinion and order, which defendants have opposed. The Company's management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend this action. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Singh" Suit Moved to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------- Jaswinder Singh, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case no. MON- L-16-01464, was removed from Superior Court of New Jersey Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The New Jersey District assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03044-FLW-DEA to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Freda L. Wolfson. Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire. The company offers a website that allows users to request a car for hire from any mobile device text message. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul Calvin Lantis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway, Suite 1400 1601 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402 3073 Facsimile: (267) 276 7776 E-mail: plantis@littler.com UNILIFE CORP: "Bulcock" Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Bill Bulcock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Unilife Corporation, Alan Shortall, John Ryan, R. Richard Wieland II, Dennis P. Pyers, David C. Hastings, and Jim Bosnjak, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03976, (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred including counsel and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unilife is a designer, manufacturer and supplier of injectable drug delivery systems. Defendants allegedly violated the Company policies and procedures regarding adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting resulting in its inability to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 by the prescribed filing deadline. The Defendants' financial statements, as well as business, operations and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint. Bulcock purchased Unilife common stock and lost substantially after corrective disclosures. Alan Shortall, John Ryan, R. Richard Wieland II, Dennis P. Pyers, David C. Hastings, and Jim Bosnjak served in the company board. Defendant is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 VALSPAR CORP: Sued Over Merger Breaches with Sherwin-Williams -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Mitsopoulos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Valspar Corporation, Jack J. Allen, John M. Ballbach, John S. Bode, William M. Cook, Jeffrey H. Curler, Shane D. Fleming, Ian R. Friendly, Janel S. Haugarth, Gary E. Hendrickson, Mae C. Jemison, and David D. Lumley, the Defendants, Case No. 12373 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 24, 2016), seeks to enjoin a proposed merger agreement unless and/or until Defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties. On March 21, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement (Merger Agreement) on March 19, 2016 by which Sherwin-Williams, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Viking Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub), will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Valspar (Proposed Transaction). Each share of Valspar common stock will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive $113.00 in cash. However, if Sherwin-Williams is required to divest or otherwise dispose of assets representing value in excess of $650 million in order to obtain necessary antitrust approvals, then each share of Valspar common stock will be converted into the right to receive only $105.00 in cash. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $11.3 billion. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Valspar's stockholders on April 18, 2016, when they caused the Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (Proxy) to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Intended to solicit stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the Proxy fails to disclose material financial projections prepared by Valspar management and used in the financial analyses of the Proposed Transaction performed by Valspar's advisors, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co., says the complaint. Valspar provides coatings and coating intermediates to a wide variety of customers. Since 1806, Valspar has been dedicated to bringing customers the latest innovations, the finest quality, and the best customer service in the coatings industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 - and - Donald J. Enright LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 VEREIT INC: Oral Argument Held in May in Consolidated Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the motions to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit have been fully briefed and the Court scheduled oral argument on May 12, 2016. Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors, among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten putative securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Actions"). The Court subsequently consolidated the SDNY Actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). Following motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, which were granted in part and denied in part, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or portions thereof) on February 12, 2016. The motions to dismiss are fully briefed and the Court has scheduled oral argument on May 12, 2016. In addition, on November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors were named as defendants in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-012816 (the "Wunsch Action"). On December 23, 2014, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and on April 15, 2015, the Maryland court transferred the Wunsch Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 15, 2015, the Wunsch Action was consolidated with the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action. VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Esposito" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and certain of its former officers and directors (among other individuals and entities) were named on October 28, 2015, as defendants in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: IRA FBO John Esposito v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08508 (the "Esposito Action"). The Esposito Action seeks money damages and asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the Company's securities. The Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Esposito Action. VEREIT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Witchko" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors were named on July 31, 2015, as defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Witchko v. Schorsch, et al., No. 15-cv-06043 (AKH) (the "Witchko Action"). The Witchko Action asserts claims under Section 14 of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements made in the Company's proxy statements and the incorporation by reference of allegedly false and misleading financial statements. The Witchko Action also seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of the Company, for, among other things, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and unjust enrichment. On October 15, 2015, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Witchko Action due to plaintiff's failure to plead facts, as required under Maryland law, demonstrating that the Board's decision to refuse plaintiff's pre-suit demand was wrongful and not a protected business judgment. VEREIT INC: Appeal in "Poling" Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in the Poling class action remains pending. Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease stockholders, the following of which remain pending: On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the merger agreement. In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was granted by the Baltimore Court and the parties have engaged in no subsequent activity in the Tarver Action. In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13- 006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease board of directors, and that the Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and the CapLease directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2015. The appeal is pending. VEREIT INC: Carter and Schindler Actions Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Carter and the Schindler class action lawsuits have been dismissed. Two actions filed in March and April 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, assert shareholder class action claims under the Securities Act of 1933, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment, among others, relating to the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became a self-managed REIT; Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00712 (the "Schindler Action"); and Carter v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00629 (the "Carter Action"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both complaints in January 2014. Both of those lawsuits were stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request made by all parties pending final approval of a consolidated action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, which case was finally resolved on appeal on February 1, 2016. The Carter Action was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by Plaintiffs on March 30, 2016 and the Schindler Action was dismissed with prejudice by the court on April 14, 2016. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4MM of Settlement in Q1 ------------------------------------------------------------- Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has recovered a total of $19 million of the class action settlement amount, of which $4 million was recovered in the first quarter of 2016. The Company said, "On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of the Company's historical financial statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012." "On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment and an order approving the settlement of the shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.). Pursuant to the settlement, we were required to pay $120 million in 2015, which was partially funded by insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault by any party in connection with the settlement. We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and have recovered a total of $19 million of the settlement amount, of which $4 million was recovered in the first quarter of 2016. Weatherford's principal business is to provide equipment and services to the oil and natural gas exploration and production industry, both on land and offshore. WOODHULL TOWERS: "Polanco" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosanna Polanco, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Woodhull Towers Cafe Corporation and George Prepis, individually, and Manoli Katsaros, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02663, (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages for all unpaid wages, liquidated damages and any other statutory penalties, all back pay, front pay, general and special damages for lost compensation and employee benefits, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs and an award of a service payment, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waitress. Woodhull is a corporation operating a restaurant located at 760 Broadway, Brooklyn, New York, 11206. Prepis is the owner and Chief Executive Officer while Katsaros is the General Manager. Defendant is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 679-5000 WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Embree" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- Tommy J. Embree, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Fairshare Vacation Owners Association, RCI LLC, Terri Dost, Peter Hernandez, and Rob Hebeler, the Defendants, Case no. 5:16-cv- 05015, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The Middle District Court assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00928-PGB-GJK to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Paul G. Byron. Wyndham Worldwide is the holding company for Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, RCI and other lodging brands. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford D. Barron, Esq. GIBBON BARRON BARRON 20 East 5th Street, Suite 1000 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 745 0687 Facsimile: (918) 745 0821 - and - Richard Franklin Hatfield, Esq. RICHARD F. HATFIELD P.A. 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 502 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374 9010 Facsimile: (501) 374 8510 - and - Robert G. Methvin Jr., Esq. MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, PA 2201 Arlington Ave S Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939 0199 Facsimile: (205) 939 0399 E-mail: Rgm@mmlaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Chris S. Coutroulis, Esq. David Matthew Allen, Esq. David E. Cannella, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA 4221 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 1000 PO Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601-3239 Telephone: (813) 223 7000 Facsimile: (813) 229 4133 E-mail: ccoutroulis@cfjblaw.com mallen@cfjblaw.com dcannella@carltonfields.com - and - John Keeling Baker MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, PLLC 425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Telephone: (501) 688 8850 Facsimile: (501) 918 7850 YSL CARE: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Edith Hernandez and Rene Gomez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YSL Care, Inc., d/b/a Columbus Manor Residential Care, and Afzal Lokhandwala, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05558 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 2016), seeks all unpaid wages due, statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. YSL Care, Inc. is a community-based residential treatment facility for mental illness located at 5107-21 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, Illinois, where Gomez worked as a cook and Hernandez worked as a dishwasher. Both claim that they were denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Office: 312-800-1017 Email: ralicea@yourclg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *