/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 121 Headlines 29 PRIME INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Marlowe" Suit AAC HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Kasper and Tenzyk Cases AARON'S INC: Motion Requesting Stay Remains Pending AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Lawsuit Remains Pending AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Case Remains Pending AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Peterson" Case Remains Pending AARON'S INC: Scheduling Order Entered in "Foster" Case ABC TELEVISION: "Muhammed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ACE AMERICAN: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit ACS DATALINE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action AIRBNB: CEO to Take Measures After Racial Discrimination Claims ALL BORO: "Marte" Suit to Recover Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay AMERICAN PROFIT: Wheeler Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class AVVO INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Vrdolyak" Suit BANK OF AMERICA: "Genesee County" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations BATS GLOBAL: City of Providence Appeal Ongoing BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Class Action Appeal Ongoing BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Overturns $30 Million Accord BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa BOXER PROPERTY: "Shelby" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay BRONCS INC: "Harris" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations CANADA: Forum to Address Bingo Class Action Opt-Out Period Issues CBE GROUP: C. Perez Files Placeholder Motion to Certify Class CBS RADIO: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages CELLCEUTIX CORP: NY Court Dismisses Securities Class Action CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending CHECK-6 INC: "Goodly" Labor Case Transferred to N.D. Okla. CHIASMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts CIGNA CORP: Updates on Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Litigation CIGNA CORP: Third Circuit Affirmed Decisions in "Franco" CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: "Gundrum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay COMMERCE BANK: "Warren" Case Remains Pending and Stayed COMMUNITY TRAFFIC: "Demeuse" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay CORYELL COUNTY: Castro Seeks Conditional Class Certification CREDIT CONTROL: Certification of Class Sought in "Elaine" Class CVS HEALTH: Bordenet Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclass DENTSPLY SIRONA: Defending Weinstat and Nathan Case Appeal DENTSPLY SIRONA: Hearings This Month in "Hildebrand" Case DENTSPLY SIRONA: Merger Class Actions Withdrawn DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Seana Goodson Seeks Certification of Class DOLGENCORP LLC: "Barfoot" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLGENCORP LLC: "Flinn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLGENCORP LLC: "Hill" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLGENCORP LLC: "Sisemore" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLGENCORP LLC: "Foppe" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harvey" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLGENCORP LLC: "Wait" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 DOLLAR GENERAL: Local Customers Join Oil Marketing Class Action DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Final Approval of "Kohler" Suit Settlement DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Nitsch" Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Working to Memorialize Settlement in Labor Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Dismissal of Consolidated "Turocy" Action Sought EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC: Defending Against Merger Lawsuit ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit ENDO INTERNATIONAL: OPANA(R) ER Lawsuits Pending in N.D. Ill. F-19 HOLDINGS: Appeal From E.D. Ky. Ruling Filed in "Malik" Suit FARMER BROS: Aug. 12 Status Conference Set in "Hernandez" Case FIFTH THIRD: Settlement in Dudenhoeffer Awaits Final Approval FIFTH THIRD: Parties in Klopfenstein Case Engaged in Discovery FIRST CITIZENS: Faces "Coroa" Suit in Mass. Superior Court FIRST HORIZON: Defending Debit Transaction Sequencing Litigation FITBIT INC: Faces Investor Class Action in California Over IPO GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Stuart Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses H&R BLOCK: Perras Files Appeal in 8th Cir. From W.D. Mo. Ruling HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Dismissed California Action HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over VRBO.com Platinum Membership HORIZON SATELLITES: "Warren" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay HORRY ELECTRIC: Seeks Reimbursement of Class Action Costs IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey INDIANA: Ex-BMV Official Fined for Ethics Violation Amid Suit KANSAS UNIVERSITY: Former Rower Joins Class Action KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: "Konarski" Suit Deal OK'd, Case Dismissed LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Marquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MDL 2325: Updates on Vaginal Mesh Cases v. Endo MDL 2521: 2017 Trial in Lidoderm Suit vs. Endo MDL 2545: 1,111 Testosterone Product Cases v. Endo Pending MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Indiana METRO PARKING: "Mirabal" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MGM RESORTS: Appellant's Opening Brief Due in July 2016 MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Wins Stay for Nine Months in CAIR Class Suit MICHAEL FOODS: Still Defends Suits v. Egg Producers NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Player Files Concussion Class Action NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Defend "Evans" Suit v. Teams NATIONAL RECOVERY: Zirogiannis Renews Bid for Class Certification NESTOR CHAYELE: "Sanchez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NEW YORK: NYC Fire Dept. Faces Electrical Workers' Suit OLD NATIONAL: Hearing Held to Approve $4.75MM Settlement OLD REPUBLIC: 10 of 12 Class Actions Dismissed ORACLE CORP: "Klarfeld" Suit Alleges Accounting Malpractice ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Wants 2nd Amended SEPTA Complaint Dismissed PALOS VERDES, CA: Has Until July 6 to Decide on Surfer Gang Fort PETAL PRODUCTIONS: "Cayuqueo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay PRECOR INC: Ill. Court Certifies Two Classes in "Mednick" Suit PROPETRO SERVICES: "Munoz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay RAYONIER INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Sorbents Filed Class Action ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Settlement Discussions for $3.3 Million SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss "Baker" Suit Due June 29 SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Consumer Class Suits Pending in Calif. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Court Vacates on Hearing in "Anderson" SHERWOOD LUMBER: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Agreed Wages SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of Class Suit SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Urged Court to Remand SOLARCITY CORP: "Gibbs" Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Call SOULCYCLE: First-Time Rider Files Class Action Over Injuries STARTEK WORKFORCE: "Ayala" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Rowe" Suit to Recover Unpaid Back Wages TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint TALMER BANCORP: Bushansky State Court Suit Voluntarily Dismissed TALMER BANCORP: 3 Class Suits Pending in E.D. Michigan TEXTURA CORPORATION: Mediation Scheduled for June 24 THERANOS INC: Sued Over Deceptive Blood Testing Unit Marketing THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE: Class Cert. Sought in "Urrutia" Action TRU-FLEX METAL: Faces Adams Pointe Suit in W.D. Penn. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Louisiana Businessman Opts Out of Class Action TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Discovery Underway in "Cohen" Suit TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump's Deposition Videos Not Public TRUSTMARK CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending UBER & LYFT: Face Class Suit Over Mass Layoffs in Texas UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NY Taxi Alliance Suit to Recover Overtime Pay UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shaver" Suit in S.D. Fla. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Attorney to Reduce Fee Request UNITED STATES: DHS Settlement to Benefit Autistic Pa. Children VCA INC: Payments to Class Members to be Disbursed in Late June VCA INC: Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification Due VINCENT CARR: Certification of Class Sought in "Saunders" Suit VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Lenart" Suit in N.D. Ill. WALT DISNEY: Seeks Appellate Review in No Poach Litigation WINSTON-SALEM, NC: Kernersville Residents Sue Over Sewer Fees WOOD GROUP: McLemore Seeks Conditional Certification of Class YELP INC: Plaintiffs' Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending YELP INC: $1.1 Million Released to Fund Settlement et al. ZYNGA INC: Court Has Yet to Enter Schedule in "Lee" Case * South Africa's Coal Miners Face Silicosis Litigation Threat * Section 245 Provision to Impact India's Company Law Regime * Post-GFC Environment Sparks More Class Action in Australia Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motors Faces 1,620 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Involved in 3 Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Defending Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Faced 36K Asbestos Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: HWC Continues to Defend Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faced 258 Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Accrues $1.4MM at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Had Less Than 220 Claims Pending at Mar 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Wins Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Electric Liable for Failure to Warn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Expert Disclosure Stricken ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE's Bid to Exclude Testimony in "Arbogast" OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Bid to Compel Discovery Partially OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of City's 3rd-Party Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bare Metal Defense Bars Claims, Court Rules ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murray" to State Court Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Insurers Lose Summary Judgment Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment vs. Honeywell in "Schwartz" Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCSD1 Named Defendant in Asbestos Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Bans Imports of Asbestos-Containing Products ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Remand of Exposure Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Court Affirms Summary Judgment Awards ASBESTOS UPDATE: KiwiRail's Asbestos Headache Continues in Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Outside Kingsgrove Food Biz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman's Death Caused by Washing Overalls ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Dumped in Chilliwack River Valley ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Bldg Sites Sent Asbestos-filled Materials ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Fully Fund Share of Pittsburgh Corning Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban in US Inches Closer with New Law ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Gym Unlikely a Health Risk ASBESTOS UPDATE: HRL Wins Contamination Contract in NZ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Changes to WCA Breath of Fresh Air for Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Accountant Dies of Asbestos Disease ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Imports from China Provokes Anger ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Man To Be Arraigned on Removal Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: Industry Kept Secret That Products Were Deadly ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Co. Under Probe for Asbestos Imports ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mackenzie Council Adopts Disposal Proposal ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG, Travelers Not Liable for Claims Payment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Union Accused of Hiding Risks at Bakeries ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Seeks Answers to Asbestos Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Inquiry Into Dangers at Bldg Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Mill Run Facility ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms $10-Mil. Penalty ********* 29 PRIME INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Marlowe" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SHASTA MARLOWE, GREGORY CHICK, and ADAM RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 29 PRIME, INC., a Nevada corporation; OC LISTING, INC., a California corporation, LOCAL ZOOM, a California corporation, TONY REDMAN, and RUSSELL WALLACE, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00550-EDL (N.D. Cal.), seek certification of these classes: Class I: All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Defendants, and/or third parties acting on Defendants' behalf, made one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to their cellular telephone number; (c) with a prerecorded message; (d) at any time between May 6, 2009 and trial. Class II: All persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one telemarketing call, made by Defendants and/or on Defendants' behalf; (b) more than 30 days after requesting not to receive further telemarketing calls; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their cellular telephone line or residential telephone line; and (e) at any time between May 6, 2009 and trial. Class III: All individuals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to whom (a) Defendants or their affiliated companies or agents thereof made more than one unsolicited telephonic sales calls within a twelve month period; (b) by use of a recorded message device; (c) at any time between May 6, 2009 and trial. Class IV: All persons in the State of California to whom Defendants or their affiliated companies, at any time between May 6, 2009 and trial, made one or more non-emergency telephone calls, without the recipient's prior consent or a prior established relationship with the recipient, that did not include an unsolicited, natural voice first informing the person answering of the name and organization of the caller and either the address or telephone number of the caller. Excluded from the Classes are the Defendants, any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest or that has a controlling interest in Defendants, and Defendants' legal representatives, assignees, and successors. Also excluded are the judge to who this case is assigned, the judge's staff, and any member of the judge's immediate family. The Court will commence a hearing on September 6, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G9eFM7mr The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Matt Malone, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com mjm@rocklawcal.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Mary B. Reiten, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com mreiten@terrellmarshall.com - and - Roblin J. Williamson, Esq. Kathryn "Kim" Williams, Esq. WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 446-6230 Facsimile: (206) 535-7899 E-mail: roblin@williamslaw.com kim@williamslaw.com - and - Matthew Kupillas, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Penn Plaza, 49th Floor New York, New York 10119-0165 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: mkupillas@milberg.com - and - David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, Massachusetts Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Preston W. Leonard, Esq. LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C. 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 395-1295 E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com AAC HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Kasper and Tenzyk Cases -------------------------------------------------------- AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company seeks dismissal of the cases, Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al. and Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al. On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The plaintiff generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information. On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in the same court. On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating these two described actions into one action. On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with certainty and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any. The Company believes the disposition of this action will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or consolidated financial position. AARON'S INC: Motion Requesting Stay Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion requesting a stay on issuance of class notice remains pending. In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. On October 4, 2013, the Company also filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in the case. The motion filed October 4, 2013 to allow counterclaims was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, and that decision was confirmed by the District Court on November 30, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion requesting permission for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to add counterclaims to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which also remains pending. On February 23, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for partial summary judgment filed August 14, 2015, dismissing plaintiff's claims that the pro-rate violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron's Service Plus violated the same act. On March 7, 2016, the Company moved for limited reconsideration of that ruling. On March 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for approval of issuance of class notice. The Company has filed a motion requesting a stay on issuance of class notice pending the ruling on the request for limited reconsideration of the partial summary judgment ruling and the request for interlocutory review of the denial of the motion to add counterclaims filed on December 23, 2015. That motion remains pending. AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Lawsuit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------- The case, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, remains pending, Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent." Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserted the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the United States District Judge dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company's motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of these rulings by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on those matters. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Case Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations in the case by Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow remain pending. In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the above-described Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015. AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Peterson" Case Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., remains pending. In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT), several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claim against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 18, 2016. The Company responded in opposition to that motion, which remains pending. AARON'S INC: Scheduling Order Entered in "Foster" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in Foster v. Aaron's, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violated the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was entered on January 26, 2016. ABC TELEVISION: "Muhammed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Ali Muhammed, Marvelous Solano-Rodriguez, Felix Moreno and Winston Blackwood, Ferdie Headlam and Ded Nicaj individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Television, Inc; ABC, Inc, ABC Family, Inc., Marvel Entertainment, LLC, Netflix, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, PRODCO, INC., FTP Productions, LLC, Mark/Gordon Company, Inc. and John Does 1-20, Case No. 1:16-cv-04133 (S.D. N.Y., June 2, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime pay, damages, reasonable attorney fees, interest and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as parking production assistants, securing sets, lots and streets for the production of TV shows. ABC is owned by media conglomerate, Walt Disney Co. and is broadcast via cable. Marvel Entertainment is a movie and TV production outfit based in Burbank, CA. NetFlix is a streaming on-demand over-the-internet pay/subscription video streaming site. Plaintiff is represented by: James Vagnini, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 Email: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com ACE AMERICAN: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Morgan moves the Court for an order certifying the case entitled STEPHEN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), as a class action. The Plaintiff seeks to certify these classes; (a) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of ACE American Insurance Company in the State of Florida, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, and who incurred additional charges in excess of the advertised premium and/or premiums specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Excess Fee Car Rental Class"). (b) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of ACE American Insurance Company Customers in Florida, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, and who incurred additional sales tax on fees in excess of the advertised premium and/or premiums specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Sales Tax Car Rental Class"). The Plaintiff also asks the Court to (i) allow for the Parties to engage in discovery on class-wide issues; (ii) grant him leave to file a full memorandum in support of his Motion for Class Certification upon the conclusion of class-wide discovery; (iii) grant his Motion for Class Certification or, alternatively, grant said motion in its entirety after the close of class-wide discovery and full briefing of the issues presented; and (iv) provide all other and further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QifymWhG The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND LAW, PLLC 62 W. Colonial St. Suite 209 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@ednormand.com ACS DATALINE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit alleging that ACS Dataline LP failed to pay their California hourly employees the correct amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with the California Labor Code. According to the Complaint, ACS Dataline, LP, operates as a subsidiary of ACS Communications, Inc. The Complaint also states that Black Box Corporation acquired ACS Communications, Inc. in 2008. The ACS Dataline, LP/Black Box Network Services lawsuit, Case No. BC617159 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the class action complaint the company allegedly paid their non-exempt employees non-discretionary bonus wages based on their performance for the company. The Complaint claims that the non-discretionary bonus wages received by Black Box employees should have been included in the employees' hourly rates for the purposes of paying the correct overtime wages. As a result of the alleged illegal overtime calculations conducted by Black Box Network Services, the class action Complaint claims other non- exempt employees working for the company were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages. The Complaint also seeks penalties relating to alleged missed meal breaks because allegedly Black Box Network Services did not have a policy to provide their employees with thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work. If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact an experienced California labor lawyer today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. AIRBNB: CEO to Take Measures After Racial Discrimination Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria M. Massie, writing for Vox Technology, reports that Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said his company plans to "take swift action" after multiple accusations of racial discrimination and transphobia by customers. "In the next months, we will be revisiting the design of our site from end to end to see how we can create a more inclusive platform," Mr. Chesky announced at the annual Open Air conference on June 8. "We're open to ideas. It's a really, really hard problem, and we need help solving it." Instead of the standard method of booking hotel rooms through a travel website, Airbnb hosts must approve guests before their stay is confirmed. This step in the process, however, is open to being influenced by hosts' potential biases. Racial discrimination claims surfaced on social media last July when Quirtina Crittenden, a black woman, chronicled her experience with discrimination using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack. Rental properties consistently denied her request on the grounds that they were booked, though those listings remained available on their corresponding calendar. In May, the hashtag went viral on social media when users like Gregory Selden shared similar experiences. Mr. Selden filed a class-action lawsuit against the $25 billion company for failing to ensure "full and equal enjoyment" of company services. Additionally, on June 5, writer and producer Shadi Petosky publicly shared a rejection she'd received from an Airbnb host in the past after disclosing that she is a transgender woman. The host was not removed until nearly a year later. Airbnb's sharing economy model has not been able to avoid discrimination. A 2016 Harvard Business School working paper found Airbnb hosts were 16 percent more likely to deny guests with stereotypically African-American-sounding names than those with stereotypically white-sounding names, even when the profiles were identical. But Airbnb's failure to act in a timely fashion may literally cost it. The paper also noted that hosts who reject African-American guests find replacements for the property only 35 percent of the time. Two new startups have also surfaced in reaction to the controversy: Noirebnb and Noirbnb. The similarities between their names may cause confusion, but both companies have the same fundamental mission. "We decided racism and discrimination were still happening so it was pretty much up to us to solve the issue," Noirbnb co-founder Stefan Grant told USA Today. Airbnb has yet to unveil specifics about how it plans to move forward to redress discrimination complaints. Laura Murphy, the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington, DC, legislative office, was reportedly tapped by the company to help with its review. Airbnb is also working to recruit underrepresented minorities in computer and data science. "We want to move this forward," Mr. Chesky said. But when guests like Mr. Grant are quickly creating their own independent solutions to Airbnb's discrimination problem, Airbnb can't afford to take its time to fix the same issue. ALL BORO: "Marte" Suit to Recover Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Marte, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All Boro Community Adult Day Care LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04121 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2016), seeks recover unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws. Defendant operates a day care center where Plaintiff works as a driver. Marte claim to be denied overtime pay and worked through legitimate rest periods. Plaintiff is represented by: Helen F. Dalton, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 Email: avshalumovr@yahoo.com AMERICAN PROFIT: Wheeler Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled EVAN WHEELER v. AMERICAN PROFIT RECOVERY, INC., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00368-RLW (E.D. Mo.), asks the Court to certify this class: All consumers who were sent both Tier I '101 and '201 letters by APR regarding AB Credit Union accounts during the time period of February 2, 2014 to May 20, 2016. The Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the purpose of which is to stop the abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors, the Plaintiff contends. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=66i4BK2R The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford B. Lear, Esq. Todd C. Werts, Esq. Sander C. Sowers, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 2003 W. Broadway, Suite 107 Columbia, MO 65203 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Facsimile: (573) 875-1985 E-mail: lear@learwerts.com werts@learwerts.com sowers@learwerts.com AVVO INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Vrdolyak" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOHN VRDOLYAK, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. AVVO, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02833 (N.D. Ill.), files his amended motion to certify a class of similarly situated individuals, defined as: All individuals licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois for whom Avvo, Inc., without consent, created a profile page on its website and on which Avvo, Inc., without consent, placed advertising material from other attorneys, individuals, or entities. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, Defendant's agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and those entities' current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. Mr. Vrdolyak further asks that he be appointed the representative of the Class, and that Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., be appointed counsel for the Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tbGFC35P The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com BANK OF AMERICA: "Genesee County" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Genesee County Employees Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. , The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P., Goldman Sachs International, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Icap Capital Markets LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities PLC, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC, Morgan Stanley Derivative Products Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, RBS Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC, UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04089 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2016), seeks treble damages and injunctive relief for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants are the primary incumbent dealers of interest rate swaps in the United States and collectively dominate the market. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the market for interest rate swaps lack the price transparency and effective competition of accepting bids and offers from anonymous market participants to match that of willing buyers and sellers at a competitive real-time price. The Defendants are represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. David J. Goldsmith, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Robin A. Van Der Meulen, 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 dgoldsmith@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com kjustice@ktmc.com BATS GLOBAL: City of Providence Appeal Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- Bats Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in a securities class action lawsuit by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, is pending. On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on a registered public stock exchange (Exchange Defendants) or a United States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the matter vigorously. Bats Global Markets, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the Company or Bats) is a global financial technology company that provides trade execution, market data, trade reporting, connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers, market makers, asset managers and other market participants, ultimately benefiting retail and institutional investors across multiple asset classes. The Company's asset classes comprise listed cash equity securities in the United States (U.S.) and Europe, listed equity options in the United States, and institutional spot foreign currency (FX) globally. The Company is headquartered in the Kansas City, Missouri, area with additional offices in New York, New York, Chicago, Illinois, San Francisco, California, London, United Kingdom (U.K.), and Singapore. BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Class Action Appeal Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- Bats Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in a securities class action lawsuit by Harold R. Lanier is pending. On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against Bats and other securities exchanges. The complaints were identical in all substantive respects, but each related to the dissemination of market data under a different market system -- (i) the NASDAQ UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market System; and (iii) the Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated Tape System. Each of the actions purported to be brought on behalf of all subscribers who entered into contracts with the exchanges for the receipt of market data and were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaints, which includes allegations that the defendants did not provide market data services in a non-discriminatory manner or provide subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., data that is accurate and not stale). On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court filed an Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants' Motion to Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits with prejudice. On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed its appeal brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24, 2015 and Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015. Oral argument was held on March 3, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the matter vigorously. Bats Global Markets, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the Company or Bats) is a global financial technology company that provides trade execution, market data, trade reporting, connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers, market makers, asset managers and other market participants, ultimately benefiting retail and institutional investors across multiple asset classes. The Company's asset classes comprise listed cash equity securities in the United States (U.S.) and Europe, listed equity options in the United States, and institutional spot foreign currency (FX) globally. The Company is headquartered in the Kansas City, Missouri, area with additional offices in New York, New York, Chicago, Illinois, San Francisco, California, London, United Kingdom (U.K.), and Singapore. BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Overturns $30 Million Accord ------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that overturning a $30 million settlement, the Sixth Circuit balked at the comprehensive seal in a case where Michigan's largest health insurer faces price-fixing allegations the court called credible. The case against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan holds "keen and legitimate interest" for millions of Michigan citizens that price-fixing harms, but a federal judge in Detroit agreed to seal most substantive filings, according to the June 7 ruling. Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge notes that this seal covered "nearly 200 exhibits and an expert report upon which the parties based a settlement agreement that would determine the rights of those millions of citizens." Blue Cross reached the $30 million deal in June 2014, settling a class action that echoed the claims a 2010 federal complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice. Against claims that its agreements with health care providers raise customer rates, Blue Cross faced the possibility of $13.7 billion in damages. Judge Kethledge notes that class members who objected to the settlement faced a problem showing why, however, since "most of the key documents were either heavily redacted or . . . completely sealed." Kethledge said U.S. District Judge Page Hood nevertheless "approved the settlement without meaningful scrutiny of the settlement's fairness to unnamed members of the class." Joined by Judges Eugene Edward Siler Jr. and Deborah Cook, Kethledge vacated approval of the settlement, as well as the orders to seal. An attorney for the class members that objected to the settlement called the opinion "well-reasoned. "We continue to have very serious concerns about the fairness of the proposed settlement," Varnum attorney Bryan Walters, of Grand Rapids, said in an email. "We look forward to the opportunity to review the record on behalf of over 25 businesses we represent who objected to the settlement." The scathing opinion calls the reasons that the parties gave in seeking the seal "brief, perfunctory, and patently inadequate." "In sealing all these documents and exhibits, the parties and the district court plainly conflated the standards for entering a protective order under Rule 26 with the vastly more demanding standards for sealing off judicial records from public view," Kethledge wrote. "One can only conclude that everyone in the district court was mistaken as to which standard to apply," the judge added. "But one point is unmistakable: on the showings set forth in this record, every document that was sealed in the district court was sealed improperly." Blue Cross argued that confidential medical information justified the seal, but Kethledge disagreed. "Here again we see the standards for protective orders and sealing conflated: that a mere protective order restricts access to discovery materials is not reason enough, as shown above, to seal from public view materials that the parties have chosen to place in the court record," the judge wrote (emphasis in original). "And as to materials actually in the record, our review of the sealed materials reveals scarcely any 'confidential patient-health information,' which is unsurprising given that such information would be irrelevant to the antitrust issues presented in this case." Undercutting the possibility that the error of the seal was harmless, Kethledge noted that the "class members cannot participate meaningfully in the process contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) unless they can review the bases of the proposed settlement and the other documents in the court record." On remand, the lower court must conduct a "vigorous examination of the settlement's fairness." Kethledge also raised concerns about the lower court's approval of $10 million in fees for the class counsel. Calling the "rates claimed by class counsel are exceedingly high," the ruling points to some of the paralegals charging $228 per hour. "Class counsel provided no backup whatsoever -- no time records, no descriptions of work done -- in support of their hours spent working on the case," the ruling states. "Instead, class counsel provided the district court with a single page of documentation for each firm, listing only the employee names, titles, rates, hours, and -- by multiplying the rates and hours -- the total lodestar for that firm. The documentation of fees in this case should have only heightened the district court's concerns about whether the settlement is fair to unnamed members of the class." Daniel Small with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Washington, D.C., serves as co-lead counsel for the class. Constantine Trela Jr., with Sidley Austin in Chicago, represents Blue Cross. The firms have not returned requests for comment. The case captioned, SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant- Appellee, Nos. 15- 1544/1551/1552 (6th Cir.). BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. captioned Elma Simione, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6068876-S (Conn. Super. Ct., June 7, 2016). The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut Products Liability Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently designed and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling, prescribing information and patient medication guide which rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective. The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM), throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood clot. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Rosemarie Riddell, Esq. MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI LLP 1222 Troy-Schenectady Road Niskayuna, NY 12309 Telephone 518-862-1200 Facsimile 518-724 0386 E-mail: rosemarie.bogdan@1800law1010.com BOXER PROPERTY: "Shelby" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Sherry Shelby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boxer Property Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01549 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Boxer Property Management Corporation is a Houston-based commercial real estate investment and management company where Plaintiff worked as onsite leasing agents. Plaintiff was falsely classified as exempt for purposes of overtime and was denied overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 BRONCS INC: "Harris" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Richard Harris, Jr., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRONCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00728-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, costs of this action including attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be necessary under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Broncs, Inc. provides third party services to the oil and gas industry, including frac stacks, manifolds, pipe racks, and flowback services throughout the United States where Plaintiff was employed as a flowback operator in and around Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Texas. He claims to be denied overtime compensation. The Defendants are represented by: Sharon Carson, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3053 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net CANADA: Forum to Address Bingo Class Action Opt-Out Period Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Shalapata, writing for The Windsor Square, reports that the action against Windsor and Tecumseh regarding the over billing of charity bingos is not certified and the opt out period has closed as of May 16. All the charities that did not officially opt out of the action are officially included as plaintiffs against the municipalities. The action charges that Windsor and Tecumseh have been charging excessive lottery licensing and administration fees and assert that the fess have become a form of unconstitutional taxation. The extent of the action goes back to 1990. The two municipalities launched an aggressive opt-out campaign that included multi-media presentations, billboard ads, radio ads, and newspaper ads. The court determined that the campaign contained misinformation and caused undue influence. The court has stated that any charities that opted out of the action may reconsider their decision and could still opt back in, though the method by which they would do this has yet to be arranged. At last count, three charities opted out of the class action lawsuit. For their part, Windsor and Tecumseh have decided not to publically discuss the action or the opt out campaign. The City of Windsor and Town of Tecumseh are pleased at the high level of community engagement and discussion that has occurred about the important issues associated with the lawsuit. Various issues concerning the opt-out period remain before the courts and will be addressed by the parties in that forum in the coming weeks. While the courts consider the various remaining issues, the City and Town will not be commenting until there are further developments. CBE GROUP: C. Perez Files Placeholder Motion to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Perez moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled CATHERINE PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE CBE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00703-RTR (E.D. Wisc.). Ms. Perez further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant her (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 the Motion to Certify 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=fc0qpHG8 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 CBS RADIO: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a Wisconsin woman filed a text spam lawsuit against CBS Radio, alleging that its WSCR-AM 670 The Score station in Chicago sent unwanted messages that cost her time on her prepaid cellphone. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed on June 7 in the U.S. District Court in the eastern district of Wisconsin. Class members could be eligible for up to $1,500 for each call or text that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in response to a growing number of complaints over telemarketing practices. Lead plaintiff Elaine Bonin of Franklin, Wis., detailed in the lawsuit at least four incidents earlier this year in which she received text messages about the Chicago Bears, Super Bowl, Chicago Bulls and Chicago White Sox despite having "no interest in Chicago sports" and never having agreed to allow CBS or 670 The Score to contact her on her TracFone cellphone. TracFones are prepaid wireless phones in which the user buys "minutes" that are loaded onto the phone, and are then deducted when the person talks on the phone or sends or gets texts, the lawsuit said. Each unsolicited text message from CBS cost Bonin "0.3 minutes" of her TracFone allotment, the lawsuit said. Class members should be anyone in the United States who, on or after June 7, 2012, got a nonemergency text message from or on behalf of CBS to a cellphone through the use of an automatic phone dialing system or a prerecorded voice, and who didn't provide their cellphone number or who revoked earlier consent, the lawsuit said. The class size is believed to be, at minimum, in the hundreds and potentially in the thousands, the lawsuit said. Kristina Quintos, spokeswoman for CBS Radio/670 The Score, said the complaint is being reviewed. "We take seriously our responsibility to adhere to all government requirements regarding cell phone messaging," she said. Ms. Bonin's lawyer, John Blythin, of Cudahy, Wis., couldn't be reached for immediate comment. CELLCEUTIX CORP: NY Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellceutix Corporation (the "Company"), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing innovative therapies with oncology, dermatology, anti-inflammatory and antibiotic applications, on June 9 disclosed that, on June 8, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit brought against the Company by a plaintiff represented by the Rosen Law Firm. The ruling dismisses all claims against Cellceutix, denies the plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint, and orders that the case be closed. Writing on behalf of the Court in a 39-page ruling, the Honorable Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety (Case 1:15-cv-07194-KPF), concluding: For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC [Second Amended Complaint] is GRANTED. Plaintiff has requested leave to replead, without presenting any concrete means of remedying the deficiencies identified in this Opinion. Because Plaintiff has previously been given leave to replead, and because the Court finds that any further repleading would be futile, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (identifying futility as a proper ground for denying leave to replead); see generally United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., - F.3d -, No. 14-4155-cv, 2016 WL 3003674, at *9 (2d Cir. May 25, 2016). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. "We are extremely pleased with Judge Failla's decision," commented attorney Michael J. Sullivan, lead counsel for Cellceutix and former U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. "From the outset, of this case, it was our opinion that the claims were both meritless and frivolous, so we were gratified that after careful consideration, to see Judge Failla agree to dismiss this case in its entirety. An anonymous libelous article caused this case to be filed. The author intended and in fact caused the price of Cellceutix's stock to decline. This type of manipulation of publicly traded stock is illegal and causes harm to companies and investors. We continue to work with regulators, prosecutors and law enforcement to assist in identifying the anonymous individuals and organizations intent on manipulating the value of a company's stock by publishing dishonest articles in online forums, and other venues. Such 'short and distort' tactics are illegal, detrimental to our securities markets, and must stop." "We are extremely pleased with the ruling," stated Leo Ehrlich, Chief Executive Officer of Cellceutix. "I greatly appreciate the work of the Ashcroft Law Firm. They never wavered in their support, and put forth a zealous defense of our Company against these baseless claims. Frivolous class action lawsuits are a huge burden on the biotech industry, negatively impacting shareholders and patients alike. Not only is a company materially damaged, but promising treatments and cures under development are put at greater risk of not making it to market. These actions caused significant damage to our Company and shareholders. We hope that the dismissal of this case and all its ramifications sends a powerful signal to others to think twice about pursuing such actions." The Court's opinion dismissing the lawsuit can be found on https://is.gd/Z5QMRq About The Ashcroft Law Firm The Ashcroft Law Firm -- http://ashcroftlawfirm.com-- was founded by former U.S. Attorney General, Governor and Senator John Ashcroft, and has offices in Boston, MA, Washington, DC, St. Louis, MO, and Austin, TX. See http://ashcroftlawfirm.com/for more information. CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal related to the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is ongoing, The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy, named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims were dismissed. On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further proceedings. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending. CHECK-6 INC: "Goodly" Labor Case Transferred to N.D. Okla. ---------------------------------------------------------- A labor dispute captioned Joseph Goodly, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. Check-6 Inc., Yarema Sos, Brian Brurud, Dennis Romano, S. Eric Benson, Laura Owen and John Dillon, Case No. 4:16-cv-00334-GKF-PJC (E.D. La., March 7, 2016), was transferred to the N.D. Okla. on June 3, 2016. Goodly was employed by Defendants as a coach on a day-rate basis and thus denied overtime pay. Check-6, Inc. is into crew resource management training for the oil and gas industry world wide. Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. Patrick R. Follette, Esq. Barry W. Sartin, Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, LLP One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: 504.833.5600 Facsimile: 504.833.8080 CHIASMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been against Chiasma, Inc. ("Chiasma" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CHMA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 16-cv-11082, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Chiasma securities between July 15, 2015 and April 17, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased securities during the Class Period, you have until August 8, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Chiasma, a late-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on developing and commercializing oral forms of therapies for patients suffering from orphan diseases. Chiasma was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts. The Company's lead product candidate is oral octreotide, or Mycapssa, for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that results in the body's production of excess growth hormone. As of June 2015, prior to Chiasma's IPO, the Company had completed a multinational Phase 3 clinical trial of Mycapssa and submitted a new drug application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking approval for marketing and sale of Mycapssa. On or about July 15, 2016, Chiasma completed its IPO, issuing 6.4 million shares and raising net proceeds of approximately $102 million. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chiasma's Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for Mycapssa was not sufficient to demonstrate efficacy and secure FDA approval; (ii) Chiasma's supervision of its suppliers was not sufficient to prevent deficiencies that would delay FDA approval of Mycapssa; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Chiasma's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 18, 2016, before the market opened, the Company announced that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter regarding its NDA for Mycapssa, stating that the FDA did not believe the Company's application had provided substantial evidence of efficacy to warrant approval and advising Chiasma that it would need to conduct another clinical trial in order to overcome this deficiency. The FDA expressed concerns regarding certain aspects of the company's single-arm, open-label Phase 3 clinical trial and strongly recommended that the company conduct a randomized, double-blind and controlled trial that enrolls patients from the United States and be of sufficiently long duration to ensure that control of disease activity is stable at the time point selected for the primary efficacy assessment. In addition, the FDA advised that, during a recent site inspection, certain deficiencies were conveyed to the representative of one of Chiasma's suppliers that would need to be resolved before approval. On this news, Chiasma's share price fell $6.42, or 63.13%, to close at $3.75 on April 18, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. CIGNA CORP: Updates on Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company provided updates on Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre- conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre- conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. The parties continue to work towards obtaining agreement around differences in interpretation. The timing of the resolution of these differences remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the agreed-upon interpretation of the District Court's order and the benefits will begin to be paid. The Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at March 31, 2016 based on a calculation consistent with the Company's interpretation of the court order. CIGNA CORP: Third Circuit Affirmed Decisions in "Franco" -------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Third Circuit affirmed on May 2, 2016, the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: "Gundrum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Eric Gundrum and Michael King, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00369 (W.D. Wis., June 2, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses, pre-judgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc. provides third party inspection services for the construction and maintenance of oil and natural gas transmission, midstream and gathering lines, facility construction, meter runs and many other types of oil and gas construction throughout the United States where Gundrum and King were employed as pipeline inspectors, performing and reviewing inspections on gas pipelines. Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon Carson, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3053 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net COMMERCE BANK: "Warren" Case Remains Pending and Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- The case, Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank, remains pending and stayed, Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No. 1416-CV19197). In the case, the customer alleges violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been similarly affected. The case has been stayed pending the final outcome of a similar case in which a ruling has been made in favor of the bank defendant. The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any appeals in the similar case have run their course. The Company believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be determined with certainty at this time. COMMUNITY TRAFFIC: "Demeuse" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Timothy Demeuse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Community Traffic Control, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-651 (E.D. Wis., June 2, 2016), seeks relief for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorney fees, and/or any such other relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Community Traffic Control, LLC is a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 4701 West Mill Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53218 providing traffic control services for roadway construction projects. Demeuse worked in preparing construction zones on public roads and highways. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL S.C. PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: 414-271-8650 Fax: 414-271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com CORYELL COUNTY: Castro Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled AMBROCIO BENITO CASTRO, et al., on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC and CC LABOR, LLC and BRANDON ISAACKS and BRENT ISAACKS and PAUL ISAACKS and RONALD FRANKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC and ROY ANDERSON CORP and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:15-cv-03641- NJB-SS (E.D. La.), move for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6KbrtvJ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com CREDIT CONTROL: Certification of Class Sought in "Elaine" Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAWN ELAINE, for herself and a class v. CREDIT CONTROL LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP, and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01271- WB (E.D. Pa.), moves for certification of a class defined as: all individuals with Pennsylvania addresses to whom Credit Control, LLC sent a letter on behalf of (A) Resurgent, (B) LVNV or (C) both of them, in a window envelope that displayed an account number above the address, which was sent on or after March 11, 2014 and on or before March 31, 2015. Ms. Elaine also seeks for her appointment as class representative, and for the appointment of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, and Sabatini Law Firm, LLC, as counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8QGlqLzE The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com fgreene@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 Facsimile: (570) 504-2769 E-mail: ecf@bankruptcypa.com CVS HEALTH: Bordenet Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PATRICIA BORDENET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-06103 (N.D. Ill.), submits her motion for class certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes purchased from the Defendant the product CVS Aftersun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel, previously called CVS 100% Pure Aloe Vera Gel, for personal use and not for resale. The Defendant's claims that its Product contains "aloe vera," and that the Product contains "100% "PURE" aloe vera are false, and its Product label is misleading, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff proposes these class definitions: National Class: All persons in the United States who purchased the Product. Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington who purchased the Product. Illinois Subclass: All persons in the State of Illinois who purchased the Product. The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class definitions may change after discovery more precisely defines the contours of the classes. The Plaintiff asks the Court 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=LXxupKpw The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com jberman@andersonwanca.com - and - Jason Thompson, Esq. Lance Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com lyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan N. Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Lori G. Feldman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com lfeldman@zlk.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Defending Weinstat and Nathan Case Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is defending against the appeal filed in the case by Marvin Weinstat and Richard Nathan. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Hearings This Month in "Hildebrand" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Court has scheduled further hearings for June 2016 in the case by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin. On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water. Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court held three days of hearings in January 2016 on plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court has scheduled further hearings in the matter for June 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Merger Class Actions Withdrawn ----------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on October 2, 2015 and October 5, 2015, the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Dawkins Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") were served with two separate putative class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. ("Sirona") against the members of Sirona's Board of Directors, the Company, and Merger Sub. The Complaints allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted and/or assisted Sirona's Board members in breaching their fiduciary duties to Sirona's stockholders in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into between the Company and Sirona on September 15, 2015. The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the two cases in December 2015 and April 2016. DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Seana Goodson Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SEANA GOODSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DESIGNED RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-03308-JVS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify a class consisting of: All persons within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who received at least one call using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice from Defendant or its agent between May 1, 2015 and present for debt collection purposes, who received such a call where Defendant's customer account records indicate that prior to any subsequent calls that said persons revoked consent to be contacted on their phone by Defendant, as identified by one or more of the following terms in Defendant's electronic customer account records: "DNC" "GHA" "PIF" "Do Not Contact" "Paid In Full" or "Good Home Address." The Plaintiff moves the Court for appointment of the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wpa7GYdf The Court will commence a hearing on August 8, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Barfoot" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 ------------------------------------------------------- Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp L.L.C., a Kentucky corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-24662, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00520-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Barfoot" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com - and - Louis I. Mussman, Esq. Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN PA 12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406 Miami, FL 33181 Telephone: (305) 891 1322 E-mail: Louis@KuMussman.com brian@kumussman.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798 3224 Facsimile: (904) 798 3263 E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com - and - Richard Trent Taylor, Esq. Daniel M Mahfood, Esq. Robert Eric Bilik, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND 800 E. Canal Street Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219-5409 Telephone: (804) 775 1000 Facsimile: (804) 225 5409 E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com dmahfood@mcguirewoods.com ebilik@mcguirewoods.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Flinn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 ----------------------------------------------------- William Flinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp L.L.C., doing business as Dollar General Corporation, the Defendant, Case no. 1:15-cv-08713, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00529-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Flinn" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com - and - Gerald H. Clark, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM, PC 811 Sixteenth Avenue Belmar, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 443 0333 Facsimile: (732) 894 9647 E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael James Van Riper, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, NY 10105 Telephone: (212) 548 2100 E-mail: mvanriper@mcguirewoods.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Hill" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 ---------------------------------------------------- Chuck Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp, L.L.C., doing business as Dollar General Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00026, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00534-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Hill" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT LAW PLC P.O. Box 982 Claremore, OK 74018 Telephone: (918) 341 1923 Facsimile: (918) 341 1923 E-mail: re.9001@yahoo.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew S. Borick , Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC 199 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402-0190 Telephone: (802) 863 2375 Facsimile: (802) 862 7512 E-mail: mborick@drm.com - and - R. Trent Taylor, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219-3916 Telephone: (804) 775 1182 Facsimile: (804) 225 5409 E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Sisemore" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 -------------------------------------------------------- Will Sisemore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp L.L.C., doing business as: Dollar General Corporation, v. the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv- 00724, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00532-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Sisemore" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee Schell Whiteley, Esq. Cynthia St Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com - and - Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT LAW PLC P.O. Box 982 Claremore, OK 74018 Telephone: (918) 341 1923 Facsimile: (918) 341 1923 E-mail: re.9001@yahoo.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard Trent Taylor, Esq. Joel Steven Allen, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND 800 E. Canal Street Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219-5409 Telephone: (804) 775 1000 Facsimile: (804) 225 5409 E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com jallen@mcguirewoods.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Foppe" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 ------------------------------------------------------ John Foppe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., Kentucky Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00026, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00523-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Foppe" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee Schell-Whiteley, Esq. Cynthia Green St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com - and - Colin W McClain, Esq. Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 P. O. Box 900 Independence, MO 64051 Telephone: (816) 836 5050 Facsimile: (816) 836 8966 E-mail: cwm@hfmlegal.com kbm@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com - and - David A. Futscher, Esq. PARRY DEERING FUTSCHER & SPARKS PSC 913 N. Oak Drive P.O. Box 2618 Covington, KY 41012 Telephone: (859) 912 2394 E-mail: david@futscherlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Heather M. Hawkins, Esq. Jesse Jenike-Godshalk, Esq. THOMPSON HINE, LLP - CINCINNATI 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4089 Telephone: (513) 352 6532 Facsimile: (513) 241 4771 E-mail: heather.hawkins@thompsonhine.com jesse.jenike-godshalk@thompsonhine.com - and - Richard Trent Taylor, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND 800 E. Canal Street Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219-5409 Telephone: (804) 775 1000 Facsimile: (804) 225 5409 E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harvey" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 ------------------------------------------------------ Janine Harvey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, a Tennessee corporation, and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., a Kentucky Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00072, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00528-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Harvey" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee Whiteley, Esq. Cynthia St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com - and - Andrew K Smith, Esq. Colin W McClain, Esq. Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 P. O. Box 900 Independence, MO 64051 Telephone: (816) 836 5050 Facsimile: (816) 836 8966 E-mail: aks@hfmlegal.com cwm@hfmlegal.com kbm@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick R. Turner STINSON, LEONARD LAW FIRM - OMAHA 1299 Farnam Street, Suite 1500 Omaha, NE 68102 Telephone: (402) 342 1700 E-mail: patrick.turner@stinson.com DOLGENCORP LLC: "Wait" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709 ----------------------------------------------------- Matthew Wait, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, a Tennessee Corporation, and Dolgencorp L.L.C., a Kentucky Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05036, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00517-GAF to the proceeding. Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The "Wait" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non- overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02709-GAF. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee Schell-Whiteley, Esq. Cynthia Green St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524 5777 Facsimile: (504) 524 5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com - and - J. Timothy Smith, Esq. ELLIOTT & SMITH LAW FIRM P.O. Box 9090 1200 E. Joyce Blvd., Suite 401 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 587 8423 Facsimile: (479) 575 0039 E-mail: tsmith@elliottsmithlaw.com - and - Colin W McClain, Esq. Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 P. O. Box 900 Independence, MO 64051 Telephone: (816) 836 5050 Facsimile: (816) 836 8966 E-mail: cwm@hfmlegal.com kbm@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Angela C Artherton, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP 3350 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 695 6044 Facsimile: (501) 537 2934 E-mail: aartherton@fridayfirm.com - and - Richard Trent Taylor, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND 800 E. Canal Street Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219-5409 Telephone: (804) 775 1000 Facsimile: (804) 225 5409 E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Local Customers Join Oil Marketing Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Rittman and Nick Sloan, writing for KITV, report that local customers have joined a class action lawsuit against Dollar General, accusing the retailer of using deceptive marketing to sell motor oil designed for cars made before 1930 and 1988. There are two different types of Dollar General oil referenced in the lawsuits. One is not suitable for cars made after 1930. The other is not suitable for cars made after 1988. Customers believe Dollar General failed to warn customers the oil can damage modern cars. But Dollar General says the warning is right there on the product. KCTV5 could not find a single bottle of Dollar General brand motor oil at a location in Mission. However, a location in Shawnee off Nieman Road sold plenty of the brand. That location is where an Overland Park man says he bought a bottle in January. Andrew Smith is an attorney for Humphrey, Farrington & McClain. He says the Dollar General is guilty of concealing their brand with other motor oils. The customer has joined a class action lawsuit. "If someone was going to sell motor oil for a 1930 or older engine, they would be marketing it to a very specific demographic of consumer and not hiding it along with other motor oils in a Dollar General," Mr. Smith said. The oil does not contain additives that modern cars need. The back label on one type of Dollar General motor oil says, "Caution: It is not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines built after 1930. Use in modern engines may cause unsatisfactory engine performance or equipment harm." DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Final Approval of "Kohler" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY KOHLER, on behalf of herself all similarly-situated individuals v. SWF OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, and DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv- 02568-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla.), jointly ask the Court to grant final approval of their settlement. On February 12, 2016, the Court granted the Parties' Revised Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class-wide settlement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims asserted against the Defendants. The Settlement provides for settlement payments to be made to approximately 298 class members. The Defendants will create a non-reversionary fund for Class Members consisting of $24,850 (less a $2,500 incentive for the Named Plaintiff). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7vWih6ak The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 379-2565 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com Defendant SWF Operations, LLC, is represented by: Christine E. Howard, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2350 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7503 Facsimile: (813) 769-7501 E-mail: choward@fisherphillips.com Defendant Domino's Pizza LLC is represented by: Richard A. Ivers, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD A. IVERS 7451 Wiles Road, Suite 101 Coral Springs, FL 33067 Telephone: (954) 757-6262 Facsimile: (954) 757-6594 E-mail: richard@iverslawfirm.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Nitsch" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC, Pixar, and Two PIC MC LLC, filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a ruling entered by the Honorable Lucy H. Koh in the lawsuit entitled Robert Nitsch, et al. v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Petitioners want the Appellate Court to determine whether Rule 23(f) review should be granted where (1) Appellate Court has not addressed under what circumstances class certification is appropriate where the claims of the class depend on establishing that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations; and (2) the District Court failed to identify how individualized issues relating to fraudulent concealment could be manageably adjudicated. In their lawsuit, Plaintiffs Robert A. Nitsch, Jr., Georgia Cano, and David Wentworth, individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, allege antitrust claims against their former employers, Blue Sky Studios, Inc.; DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.; Two Pic MC LLC, formerly known as ImageMovers Digital LLC; Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC; Pixar; Sony Pictures Animation Inc. and Sony Pictures Imageworks, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to suppress, and actually did suppress, employee compensation to artificially low levels by agreeing not to solicit each other's employees and by exchanging employee compensation information in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; California's Cartwright Act; and California's Unfair Competition Law. The appellate case is captioned as ROBERT A. NITSCH, JR., GEORGIA CANO, and DAVID WENTWORTH, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC., THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, LUCASFILM LTD., LLC, PIXAR, and TWO PIC MC LLC, Defendants-Petitioners, and BLUE SKY STUDIOS, INC., SONY PICTURES ANIMATION INC., and SONY PICTURES IMAGEWORKS, INC., Defendants., Case No. 16-80077, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Defendant-Petitioner DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Rod J. Stone, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-6430 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com dswanson@gibsondunn.com rstone@gibsondunn.com Defendants-Petitioners The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC, Pixar, and Two Pic MC LLC are represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94061-1418 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com - and - Deborah A. Garza, Esq. Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: dgarza@cov.com tisaacson@cov.com - and - John W. Keker, Esq. Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, California 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: jkeker@kvn.com rvannest@kvn.com charris@kvn.com EL POLLO LOCO: Working to Memorialize Settlement in Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit by a former employee are working to memorialize a settlement and secure the required court approval. On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. "We have executed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining an agreement in principle between the parties to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. The parties are working to memorialize the settlement and secure the required court approval," the Company said. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. The Company's activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly- owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), which develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating segment. At March 30, 2016, the Company operated 188 and franchised 248 El Pollo Loco restaurants. EL POLLO LOCO: Dismissal of Consolidated "Turocy" Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Movants Ron Huston, Robert W. Kegley, Sr., Peter Kim, Dr. Richard Levy, Samuel Tanner have asked Judge David O Carter of the Central District Court of California to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the case, Daniel Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal.). El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2016, that Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv- 01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv- 01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. The Company's activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly- owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), which develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating segment. At March 30, 2016, the Company operated 188 and franchised 248 El Pollo Loco restaurants. EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC: Defending Against Merger Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Empire District Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is defending against lawsuits in connection with the pending merger with Liberty Central. On March 24, 2016, a purported shareholder of Empire filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the 3rd Judicial District, in Shawnee County, Kansas. The complaint alleges that Empire's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting an inadequate sales process and failing to obtain adequate consideration, having an interest in completing the Merger, and failing to make adequate disclosures in the proxy statement. The complaint seeks various relief, including an injunction against the Merger. The complaint also alleges that Empire, APUC, Liberty Central and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with any certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the lawsuit are without merit. The Empire District Electric Company operates its businesses as three segments: electric, gas and other. The Empire District Electric Company (EDE), a Kansas corporation organized in 1909, is an operating public utility engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in parts of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. On February 9, 2016, Empire entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Liberty Utilities (Central) Co., a Delaware corporation (Liberty Central), and Liberty Sub Corp., a Kansas corporation (Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Empire, with Empire surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty Central (the Merger). ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint in a class action lawsuit in Illinois related to testosterone products. In November 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against EPI, Auxilium, and various other manufacturers of testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance companies and other third party payers that had paid for certain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts of EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers with respect to certain testosterone products constituted racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), and other civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. Further, the complaint alleges that EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers violated various state consumer protection laws through their marketing of certain testosterone products and raises other state law claims. In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs responded by filing amended complaints. In February 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for conspiracy to commit racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and claims for negligent misrepresentation. In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. * * * Endo also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in October 2015, a civil class action complaint was filed against EPI and other defendant manufacturers in the Northern District of Illinois. Similar litigation may be brought by other plaintiffs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. "We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for this matter, if any, but we will explore all options as appropriate in our best interest," the Company said. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: OPANA(R) ER Lawsuits Pending in N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend lawsuits related to OPANA(R) ER. Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER have filed cases against our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, and other pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which we subsequently acquired, and Impax Laboratories Inc. (Impax), all of which have been transferred and coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Some of these cases have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others have been filed on behalf of individual retailers. These cases generally allege that the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation of OPANA(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well as state common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In February 2016, the District Court issued orders (i) denying defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers, (ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers and (iii) granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints, which they have done. "We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the timing or outcome of any such litigation," the Company said. F-19 HOLDINGS: Appeal From E.D. Ky. Ruling Filed in "Malik" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Pla Anwar Khejaranan Malik filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Anwar Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00130, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. The appellate case is captioned as Anwar Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-5791, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. THE GETTY LAW GROUP PLLC 250 W. Main Street, Suite 1900 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 259-1900 Facsimile: (859) 259-1909 E-mail: jwinters@gettylawgroup.com Defendants-Appellees DEF F-19 Holdings, LLC, and DEF Fitness 19 KY 185, LLC, are represented by: Daniel J. Donnellon, Esq. FARUKI, IRELAND & COX 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 632-0308 E-mail: DDonnellon@bgdlegal.com FARMER BROS: Aug. 12 Status Conference Set in "Hernandez" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has set August 12, 2016 for a status conference in the cases, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co. and Monica Zuno vs. Farmer Bros. Co., Superior Court of State of California, County of Los Angeles. On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single cause of action for unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses. Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to establish sub-classes as appropriate. On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative, Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court has related this case to the Hernandez case. On November 17, 2015, the unified case was assigned to a judge, and this judge ordered the stay on discovery to remain intact until after a decision on the Company's demurrer action. The plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and, in response, on January 5, 2016, the Company filed a reply to this Opposition to the Demurrer. The Company said, "On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer. and found in our favor, sustaining the demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend as to the plaintiff Hernandez, and so dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related putative class. Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at this time, pending the filing of an amended complaint on behalf of this remaining plaintiff and reduced putative class. The Court has lifted the stay on discovery and has set August 12, 2016 for a status conference. At this time, we are not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter." Farmer Bros. Co., is a manufacturer, wholesaler and distributor of coffee and distributor of tea and culinary products. FIFTH THIRD: Settlement in Dudenhoeffer Awaits Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in the Dudenhoeffer class action remains subject to final approval. In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The appellate court held a hearing on those appeals on September 28, 2015, and the matter is under consideration. In addition, on July 28, 2015, merchants opposing the class settlement filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the order approving the settlement because of alleged misconduct in another case by certain counsel to the merchant class and a former attorney for MasterCard. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account have been returned to the control of the defendants. More than 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These "opt-out" federal lawsuits have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On July 18, 2015, the court in which all the remaining opt-out federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. On March 29, 2016, the court in two class action lawsuits consolidated as Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. filed in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio preliminarily approved a settlement in which the Bancorp agreed to pay $6 million and make certain changes to the Bancorp's profit sharing plan. The complaints alleged that the Bancorp and certain officers violated ERISA by continuing to offer Fifth Third stock in the Bancorp's profit sharing plan when it was no longer a prudent investment. The settlement is subject to final court approval. FIFTH THIRD: Parties in Klopfenstein Case Engaged in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the lawsuit by William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney are engaged in discovery. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation. On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. No trial date has been scheduled. FIRST CITIZENS: Faces "Coroa" Suit in Mass. Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Emanuel Coroa. The case is captioned Emanuel Coroa, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Citizens' Federal Credit Union, the Defendant, Case No. 1673CV00558 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 7, 2016). First Citizens' is a federally chartered credit union headquartered in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: nfo@mass-legal.com rm@mass-legal.com FIRST HORIZON: Defending Debit Transaction Sequencing Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that FTBNA is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other things. FHN's estimate of RPL for this matter is subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies that might be available or awarded; and the ultimate outcome of potentially significant motions. FITBIT INC: Faces Investor Class Action in California Over IPO -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hadley, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a California man is suing the consumer electronics firm Fitbit, alleging it defrauded investors in its initial public offering. Paul Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court against Fitbit Inc., Chairman James Park, chief technology officer Eric N. Friedman, chief financial officer William Zerella, lead independent director Jonathan D. Callaghan; directors Steven Murray and Christopher Paisley, and several firms serving as underwriters for the initial public offering: Morgan Stanley & Company LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Suntrust Robinson Humphrey Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates Inc., Stifel, Nichlaus & Company Inc., William Blair & Company LLC, and 25 unnamed defendants. Fitbit has petitioned to remove the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing the case falls under federal jurisdiction because it deals with a Securities Act claim. According to the complaint, Rivera purchased common stock in Fitbit after its initial public offering June 22, 2015. On Jan. 5, 2016, the suit states, a class action lawsuit was brought against the company because of alleged problems with its heart- monitoring technology. Since the public has learned of the alleged glitch, the stock price has fell below $12 per share, about 40 percent off the IPO price, the lawsuit states. The suit alleges the IPO's registration statement misstated facts about the company's heart monitoring technology. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial and compensatory damages, plus litigation costs. They are represented by attorneys Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- George C. Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Jay N. Razzouk -- jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com -- of Robbins Arroyo LLP in San Diego. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 4:16-cv-02890 GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Stuart Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kaylan Stuart, Dustin Murilla and Walter Chruby, and Intervenor Rocky Hobbs ask the Court to certify the action entitled In re Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation, Case No. 5:14-cv-05275-TLB (W.D. Ark.), to proceed as class action asserting a claim under the Federal Communications Act on behalf of: All persons in the United States who, at any time within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls. The Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the Action to proceed as a class action on behalf of these four subclasses asserting claims under the common law of unjust enrichment: (1) The Arkansas UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont or West Virginia, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls; (2) The Minnesota UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident of Minnesota, Alaska, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah or Washington, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls; (3) The Pennsylvania UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia or Wisconsin, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls; (4) The Texas UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident of Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Dakota or Oklahoma, within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as representatives of the FCA Class and each, respectively, as the representative of the Arkansas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Texas UE Subclasses; and to appoint the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Berger & Montague, P.C., Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky P.C., and Cohen Milstein Seller & Toll, PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel serving on a Co-Lead Class Counsel Committee, with KTMC serving as the Chair of such Committee, and the law firm of Everett Wales & Comstock as Liaison Class Counsel. They further seek an order directing that Notice to the Class be disseminated in accordance with a Notice program to be submitted to the Court for the Court's approval. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FvdFNIh3 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Amanda R. Trask, Esq. Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com atrask@ktmc.com mgalloway@ktmc.com - and - Daniel Berger, Esq. Peter R. Kahana, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: danberger@bm.net pkahana@bm.net bpodell@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Robert Braun, Esq. Emmy L. Levens, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com RBraun@cohenmilstein.com elevens@cohenmilstein.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Amy C. Martin, Esq. EVERETT WALES & COMSTOCK 1944 East Joyce Boulevard P.O. Box 8370 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 443-0292 Facsimile: (479) 443-0564 E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com - and - Susan L. Burke, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC) 1611 Park Avenue Baltimore, MD 21217 Telephone: (410) 733-5444 Facsimile: (410) 733-5444 E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHEN MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com - and - Beth T. Seltzer, Esq. Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: BSeltzer@barrack.com JGittleman@barrack.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Todd Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - James Radford, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0302 E-mail: james@decaturlegal.com - and - Andrew R. Lynch, Esq. ANDREW R. LYNCH, P.C. 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 225 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373-7735 E-mail: andrew@atlnotguilty.com H&R BLOCK: Perras Files Appeal in 8th Cir. From W.D. Mo. Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Perras filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00450- BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 24, 2016, the Case is brought concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The Plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The appellate case is captioned as Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et al., Case No. 16-2572, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. STUEVE & SIEGEL 550 W. C Street, Suite 610 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com - and - Norman Siegel, Esq. Bradley Wilders, Esq. STUEVE & SIEGEL 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com Defendants-Appellees H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB Technology, LLC, are represented by: James David Griffin, Esq. SCHARNHORST & AST 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1950 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 268-9411 E-mail: jgriffin@sakg.com - and - Kathryn Lee, Esq. SPENCER & FANE 40 Corporate Woods 9401 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210-0000 Telephone: (913) 345-8100 E-mail: klee@spencerfane.com - and - Glen David Nager, Esq. Charlotte Taylor, Esq. JONES & DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 E-mail: gdnager@jonesday.com ctaylor@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey Simon, Esq. Derek T. Teeter, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 983-8000 Facsimile: (816) 983-8080 E-mail: jeff.simon@huschblackwell.com derek.teeter@huschblackwell.com HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Dismissed California Action ------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court in the California class action lawsuit has granted an order dismissing the case. On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways Wholehealth Networks, Inc ("HWHN"), were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter"). On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount. On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been joined as a party in the California Matter. In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient to include an "opt-out" notice. On August 28, 2015, the FCC granted the Company relief requested in the Waiver Petition. We cannot predict the impact on the California Matter of the FCC's grant of relief pursuant to the Waiver Petition. On December 17, 2015, the court in the California Matter denied a class certification motion by the plaintiff and on February 1, 2016, denied the plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings. On May 3, 2016, the court in the California Matter granted an order dismissing the California Matter with prejudice as to the individual claims of the plaintiff and without prejudice as to the other potential members of the class. HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over VRBO.com Platinum Membership -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Chmura, Christine Roher and Joe Rojas, writing for NBC Bay Area, report that Carrie Walton rents her Santa Cruz vacation home to travelers who book on the website VRBO.com. She paid VRBO $1,200 for a one-year platinum membership, a subscription designed to boost her home's ranking in search results on the site. "Someone looks, there's maybe 10 pages of homes, and maybe this way, with platinum, you'll be on the top of the page, most likely at the top," said Ms. Walton. And the investment paid off. Ms. Walton said renting her home was a breeze, at first. But three months ago, VRBO started charging travelers a service fee -- 4 to 9 percent of the total cost of the rental. It's a fee VRBO pockets, not Ms. Walton. Ms. Walton says this service fee wasn't part of her agreement with VRBO. And now, because of it, travelers aren't renting her home because it's too expensive. "We didn't pay a platinum subscription to have VRBO scare business away," said Ms. Walton. Adding fuel to the fire, Ms. Walton's listing fell way down on VRBO's search results. She says VRBO told her it made yet another change -- this one to its algorithm, and her platinum membership alone no longer guaranteed high search results. Ms. Walton says her $1,200 platinum membership is now worthless, because she isn't getting what she paid for. Leena Shah's story echos Ms. Walton's. She paid a platinum membership fee, and when the new service fee kicked in, she says rentals of her Maui condo drastically dropped. And so did her search ranking. She's been asking VRBO to refund her platinum membership, but has had no luck. "I'm just throwing my hands up in the air now with VRBO," said Ms. Shah. Ms. Walton and Ms. Shah aren't alone. Complaints about VRBO litter the Internet. Angry homeowners even created a Facebook page. The complaints also landed in attorney Michael Bowse's office. "We receive dozens and dozens of calls, multiple calls, a day," said Mr. Bowse. Mr. Bowse filed a class action lawsuit against Homeaway, which owns VRBO, accusing the company of bait and switch and breaching its contracts by charging the new service fee. "So it essentially took people's money under one set of circumstances, and then changed the circumstances once it took their money," said Mr. Bowse. Ms. Walton and Ms. Shah aren't part of this lawsuit yet. But they want their money back. "I want my money refunded because it's a breach of contract," said Ms. Walton. "It's not what I signed up for." NBC Bay Area Responds asked VRBO if Ms. Walton and Ms. Shah would get a refund for their platinum membership. The company wouldn't answer our question, citing pending litigation. VRBO also said that since adding the new service fee, it's delivering more happy customers to VRBO owners. It also said that travelers' peace of mind during their trip is what matters most, so as part of the new service fee, it's introduced new security guarantees and 24/7 customer service. HORIZON SATELLITES: "Warren" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Warren, Christopher Leatherwood and Donald Wagner Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Horizon Satellites, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Entertainment, Case No. 1:16-cv-01749-ODE (N.D. Ga., May 31, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated and nominal damages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Horizon Satellites, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in providing wholesale field services to customers in many states where Plaintiffs worked as technicians. Defendant improperly classified Plaintiffs and the class they represent as independent contractors and not employees, thus denying them overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin B. Kandy THE LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN B. KANDY LLC 534 Medlock Road, Suite 109 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: (678) 824-2251 Fax: (678) 401-0398 Email: ben@bkandylaw.com - and - Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq. DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN LLC 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: (404) 979-3150 Fax: (404) 979-3157 Email: benjamin@dcbflegal.com HORRY ELECTRIC: Seeks Reimbursement of Class Action Costs --------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Ropp, writing for myhorrynews.com, reports that two years after agreeing to a $6 million settlement in a class action lawsuit, Horry Electric Cooperative is continuing to pursue reimbursement from Santee Cooper for the money it has spent defending the lawsuit and compensating members of the class. After the settlement, Horry Electric Cooperative filed its own lawsuit, this one against Santee Cooper, saying it wasn't responsible for the moisture problems that developed in coastal area homes due to vapor barriers that were required by the Good Cents program. A circuit judge recently allowed the disagreement between the two utilities to continue when he denied Santee Cooper's request to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Horry Electric Cooperative. Circuit Judge George C. James Jr. wrote, however, that his ruling to continue the case should give no one any ideas about how the case might eventually be decided. The issue stems back to 2011 when about 1,000 Horryites, who participated in the Good Cents program hoping to save money on their electric bills, joined forces in a class-action lawsuit asking to be paid for damages to their homes that they say were caused by the Good Cents program's guidelines. Actually, the home construction that spawned the lawsuit dates to 1988 when some of the homeowners in the coastal area built their homes, using the Good Cents regulations calling for vapor barriers to be used in heated spaces. The homeowners say the vapor barriers created condensation, which caused them problems with mold. In the original lawsuit, filed in 2011, Ronnie Ferrell, Tammy Vance and David Montorio filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others in their same situation, blaming Horry Electric Cooperative for requiring them to install a vapor barrier on the inside of their exterior walls to take advantage of the Good Cents savings. In 2003, Horry Electric dropped this vapor barrier requirement. The plaintiffs argued that Horry Electric should have known earlier about the moisture and mold problems. That lawsuit was settled in 2014, calling for a payout of a total of $6 million. The settlement, which was approved by Circuit Judge Benjamin Culbertson, awards Messrs. Montorio and Vance $5,000 each as representatives of the class. Mr. Ferrell did not continue as a class representative through the settlement. Culbertson also determined that giving the Defendant's attorneys 16 percent of the settlement amount, or $990,000, was a fair payment for the three years of work they did on the case and the expenses they covered for the class. The order does not list the names of attorneys who shared in the award. According to the settlement, each member of the class was approved for a payment. Judge Culbertson pointed out that no one objected to the settlement at a hearing in May of 2014, and wrote that the settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate -- in light of the risks of the litigation -- and in the best interests of the class." The document also makes it clear that Horry Electric admitted no fault or wrongdoing of any kind. Some, but not all of the $6 million has been paid out, according to current Horry Electric attorney Pope Johnson of Columbia. Mr. Johnson said there were two ways that litigants could receive a payment from the lawsuit. They could choose either to have their problems remedied and submit a bill for payment or they could take a flat payment of $2,000. Mr. Johnson says all of the people who agreed to the $2,000 payment have been paid, but some people who chose to submit their bills have not received their payments. Mr. Johnson isn't sure how much money has been paid so far, and didn't know how many people took the $2,000. He did know that Horry Electric's insurance carrier has paid a portion of the claims. In its 2013 lawsuit, Horry Electric claimed it was Santee Cooper and not Horry Electric officials who designed the requirements for the Good Cents program. It used the requirements set by Santee Cooper and was simply serving as a pass through agency, its lawsuit claims. Horry Electric officials also claim that Santee Cooper knew about the problem with requiring vapor barriers in Coastal areas and should have told Horry Electric to stop requiring them, but to keep the requirement as a recommendation. In May of 2014, a circuit judge in Horry County heard a motion from Santee Cooper asking that Horry Electric's lawsuit be dismissed, based on several arguments. In a written request for dismissal, Santee Cooper's attorneys opined that the homes in question were built too long before the lawsuit was filed and Horry Electric should not have agreed to the settlement. The two homeowners mentioned in the pleading are the representatives of the class, and Santee Cooper's attorney, B. Rush Smith III, wrote that as representatives of the class their situation should be applied to the entire class. In other words, all of the class should have been disqualified from pursuing the class-action lawsuit due to the time element involved with the representatives' homes. Judge Roger M. Young Sr., judge of the S.C. Business Court, agreed with Santee Cooper and dismissed all of Horry Electric's claims against Santee Cooper, except the request for equitable indemnification, saying they didn't know when he ruled on the case how much the lawsuit settlement was going to cost, saying that although the settlement had been agreed upon by the parties involved, a judge had not approved the settlement at that point. Horry Electric later appealed Young's ruling dismissing the other issues, and that appeal is still pending. In its reply to Santee Cooper's request for dismissal, Horry Electric says it deposed a Santee Cooper witness who said Santee Cooper and Southern Electric International, Inc. knew about the issue of potential moisture problems with the use of the vapor barrier before it offered the program to Horry Electric. "This witness confirmed that there was no evidence that any of this information was disclosed to HEC at any time. This witness confirmed that although the Good Cents program was initially offered with the vapor barrier as a recommendation and not a requirement, this changed in 1991 when the installation of a vapor barrier became a requirement for participation in the Good Cents program. "Although the witness took some questioning to get the answer, the witness admitted that Glenn S. Cannon of Santee Cooper and Geoff Hartman of Southern Electric International, Inc. in their 1986 correspondence discussed the information that in a coastal area the vapor barrier may create moisture problems and may create liability if it was a requirement of the plan," the memorandum in opposition to Santee Cooper's motion to dismiss reads. Santee Cooper responded that Horry Electric had erred when it agreed to a settlement with people whose homes were too old to qualify under the law and it (Santee Cooper) should not be responsible for that agency's actions. In his ruling, Judge James found that the idea that the whole class should be barred from receiving any compensation because the claims of the class representatives were too old generally applies only to forming the class. However, he says he found no authority for it to be applied to situations in which the settling defendant in a class action is suing a third party. "If such authority exists, the court will rule accordingly," he wrote. Santee Cooper argued that the claims in the original case were based on Horry Electric's negligence and were not based on any liability imputed to it by Santee Cooper. The court concluded that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to keep the lawsuit from being dismissed. "Nothing in this order shall be interpreted as a finding of fact or conclusion of law on the merits of this case," James wrote. In April of 2016, Horry Electric pointed to a 2013 ruling allowing the issue of equitable indemnification to proceed. At that point, the settlement hadn't been approved and no money had been paid out, according to court documents. After the settlement was approved, Horry Electric filed a lawsuit, through its attorney Pope Johnson of Columbia, asking that all of the costs of the lawsuit, expenses and expenditures and costs of defending and settling the initial lawsuit and any other relief the court deemed appropriate be transferred over to Santee Cooper because "Santee Cooper is liable to it for the expenses including Horry Electric's attorney's fees and costs and any settlement costs incurred by Horry Electric in protecting its interest in the initial case." The most recent pleading continues to opine that the Good Cents Program was a pass through program and Santee Cooper had the right to audit for Horry Electric's compliance with the requirements of the program. It says any alleged fault of Horry Electric was imputed to the utility by Santee Cooper because Horry Electric merely offered its members participation in the pass-through Good Cents Program, which it believes benefitted Santee Cooper only. Mr. Johnson said on June 7 that the case could go on for several more years. "We maintain that we were without fault and that this was a program put forward by Santee Cooper and it's our position that they should indemnify us for what we had to pay out," he said. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:IMMU) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Immunomedics securities between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Immunomedics securities during the Class Period, you have until August 8, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Immunomedics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune, and other diseases. Among other product candidates, the Company is developing the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan IMMU-132 ("IMMU- 132"), which is in Phase II trials for treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and small-cell and non- small-cell lung cancers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the abstract for IMMU-132 that Immunomedics submitted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") for presentation at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting contained previously disclosed results from a mid-stage study; (ii) Immunomedics had misrepresented to ASCO that its abstract for IMMU-132 contained only updated and previously undisclosed data; (iii) the foregoing misrepresentation was a violation of ASCO policy and made Immunomedics' IMMU-132 presentation subject to removal from the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting schedule; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Immunomedics' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 19, 2016, Immunomedics announced that the Company would present updated results for its IMMU-132 treatment at ASCO's Annual Meeting in June 2016. On June 2, 2016, after the market closed, media outlets reported that ASCO had removed a scheduled presentation by Immunomedics regarding the Company's IMMU-132 breast cancer drug from ASCO's annual meeting. ASCO stated that Immunomedics had misrepresented that the Company's abstract for IMMU-132 contained updated and previously undisclosed results from a mid-stage study, when in fact the IMMU-132 data that Immunomedics submitted were old and previously seen. As a result of this news, Immunomedics shares fell $0.78, or 14.72%, to close at $4.52 on June 3, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. INDIANA: Ex-BMV Official Fined for Ethics Violation Amid Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that a former top official at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles will be fined $500 for violating state ethics laws when he helped negotiate a lucrative state contract with a company, then took a job with the firm. The punishment immediately drew criticism from ethics experts and government accountability advocates who say it doesn't go far enough to deter such violations in the future. The penalty is the result of a settlement agreement between former BMV Chief of Staff Shawn Walters and Indiana Inspector General Cynthia Carrasco, who accused him of violating the state's ethics rules after an IndyStar investigation last year. The Indiana State Ethics Commission signed off on the agreement on June 9 without any discussion. Mr. Walters helped negotiate a contract with Express MVA. The deal provided the company with BMV workstations and allowed it to charge customers a "convenience fee" for providing title and registration services normally available through state license branches. The company collected about $6 million a year in fees under the arrangement. Mr. Walters then accepted a newly created executive position at the company in 2013. Questions were later raised about whether the convenience fees were allowed under state law. Lawmakers didn't pass legislation expressly authorizing them until last year. In the settlement approved on June 9, Mr. Walters acknowledged that he violated a state ethics law that requires a one-year "cooling-off" period for employees who want to take a job with a company that does business with the state. The law is intended to prevent employees with the power to award or negotiate state contract from doing favors for private companies that can award them with high-paying jobs. Critics of his $500 fine say it is too small to discourage other state employees from using their government jobs to advance their personal financial interests. "It amounts to a slap on the wrist," said Julia Vaughn, policy director for Common Cause Indiana, a government accountability group. "Five hundred dollars really is not going to put fear into anybody. It's not a significant enough punishment to get anybody's attention or make them take these laws seriously." Carrasco defended the penalty, saying it was consistent with what has been levied in similar cases in the past. When asked if such a small amount of money is an effective deterrent, she said, "I won't go beyond just saying we're happy with the agreed settlement and that the commission accepted it. I kind of gave you some background on how we came up with the fine. I'll probably just stick with that." She later pointed to two settlements from previous years. One involved a former employee at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management who did consulting work for a company he had regulated. He was fined $250. The other case involved a Board of Animal Health employee who received compensation from a meat plant he had regulated. He was fined $1,000. State law gives the ethics commission broad discretion when it comes to punishments. They can impose a civil penalty of up to "three times the value of any benefit received from the violation." That's actually three times harsher than penalties authorized in a federal ethics law for executive branch officials, said Kathleen Clark, an ethics expert at the University of Washington School of Law. It's not clear how that value would be calculated in Mr. Walters' case. The company said in August that Walters earned a base salary of $60,000 a year at Express MVA, with potential for significantly higher incentive pay if he brought in new business from other states. If that amount was used, the maximum penalty would be $180,000. "The commission appears to have more enforcement authority than it is exercising," Ms. Clark said. "It would be helpful if the commission explained why it is not using enforcement authority that it has, and why it thinks a former employee should be able to retain wrongful compensation." "Did the commission blow him a kiss along with the $500 penalty?" she asked. Gov. Mike Pence, who appoints both the inspector general and the five members of the ethics commission, declined to comment for this story. He requested the ethics probe last year after the IndyStar story. He also ended the state's contract with Express MVA, saying his administration "is committed to a government that is as good as our people." Even if the size of Mr. Walters' penalty won't do much to deter such conduct by other state employees, Mr. Pence's decision to cancel the contract with Express MVA is likely to discourage private companies from trying to entice or reward government employees, said Leslie Lenkowski, a professor at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. "The real deterrence would come from the action against the company," he said. "It takes two to tango, not only the individual state employee, but the company as well. The deterrent effect you want is on future companies." Mr. Walters and his attorney did not attend the ethics commission meeting and did not return messages from IndyStar. But in a legal deposition last year in another matter, Mr. Walters said he had no oversight of the company's Indiana operations, despite his title as chief operating officer. The ethics case did not address Mr. Walters' role in millions of dollars in overcharges at the BMV. Another IndyStar investigation, published in March 2015, found that Walters and other BMV executives knew about some of those fee problems for years but chose to ignore or cover up the overcharges rather than refund the extra money to motorists and adjust to significant budget losses. About $30 million was later refunded, but only after a class- action lawsuit was filed. The state has since voluntarily refunded millions of dollars in other fees it improperly collected and a second class-action lawsuit involving additional fees is ongoing. In the meantime, Pence and state lawmakers approved a piece of legislation earlier this year to reduce the number of BMV fees and put a cap on convenience fees like those charged by Express MVA. KANSAS UNIVERSITY: Former Rower Joins Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Mara Rose Williams, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that the father of a former University of Kansas rower who says she was raped by a football player in her dorm room revealed his daughter's identity on June 9 and with her joined a class action lawsuit against the university. Jim McClure and his daughter Sarah McClure joined the suit filed in the District Court of Douglas County in April by the parents of another rower, Daisy Tackett. In the class action suit, Amanda and James Tackett say the university violated the state's consumer protection law by using "deceptive and false statements of safety" in reference to the campus and its dormitories when it recruited their daughter to the KU rowing team. KU filed a motion to dismiss the Tackett case, saying that since the Tacketts are neither students nor parents of a current student, they are not consumers and have no standing to sue under the law. The Tacketts' daughter also joined the class action suit on June 9. In a statement on June 9, KU spokeswoman Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said the university "takes very seriously any and all claims of sexual assault and sexual violence." She said federal law prohibits the university from releasing details on individual sexual assault investigations. But, Ms. Barcomb-Peterson said, the university "thoroughly investigated Ms. McClure's allegations and as a result the accused student is no longer enrolled at KU. We are confident the courts will agree that we've met our obligations to both Ms. McClure and Ms. Tackett." The Juen 9 action by the McClures links three suits filed within the last two months involving alleged sexual assaults in KU's Jayhawker Towers by the same KU football player. Jim McClure said he and his daughter have decided to be identified now because "we had to stand up and make KU take notice that something needs to change." He said his daughter, who is home in Wilmette, Ill., did not want to be identified before now because she was still in school and living in Jayhawker Towers, "full of football players," and she feared retaliation. Mr. McClure said his daughter has been "depressed and despondent" since the alleged assault. He said she was recruited by several colleges as a successful high school rower, and she chose KU in part because of a family legacy. She aspires to become a veterinarian. "My grandfather is Keith C. Foster," Mr. McClure said. "He graduated from KU in the 1930s. His name is inscribed in the (KU) bell tower for having died in World War II. Her coming to Kansas was like being able to connect with family." Sarah McClure, as Jane Doe 7, filed a lawsuit against KU in April, saying the university violated Title IX, the law prohibiting gender discrimination and protecting against sexual violence and harassment. It also says the school discriminated against her because of a disability. The now 19-year-old has an autoimmune disorder that affects her diet. Her suit also says KU failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual assaults at Jayhawker Towers. It additionally says the university failed to stop retaliation against her, from the football player and members of the rowing team's coaching staff, after she reported the sexual assault. The suit says Ms. McClure told a friend about the assault but did not tell the rowing team's sports psychologist, Lawrence police or KU security until two months after the incident. The football player, who is not being identified by The Star because he was never charged with a crime and was not identified in any of the three lawsuits, was also a resident of Jayhawker Towers. The same player was accused of assaulting Daisy Tackett in the fall of 2014. Ms. Tackett on March 2 sued the university, saying it violated Title IX, was slow to investigate her complaint of sexual assault, and failed to protect her from harassment and stalking by the player after she reported the incident to the university Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access, which reviews claims of sexual assault and misconduct. In May, KU responded to that suit by saying the incident was not the university's fault and the suit should be dismissed. The football player was expelled from KU earlier this year, according to Ms. McClure's lawsuit. The player appeared in KU's first seven games of 2015 but did not play in the last five, starting with an Oct. 31 game against Oklahoma. Both women reported to KU they had been assaulted by the player. While Ms. McClure made a police report in late October, the Douglas County district attorney's office declined to prosecute the player after receiving that police report, determining the case was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. KU athletic director Sheahon Zenger was asked by The Star whether the football player had been disciplined by the team. An athletic department representative replied that Zenger can't comment about the matter. In an April statement that Sarah McClure released as Jane Doe 7, she said that "after I reported my assault, everything KU did made me feel like they were trying to get me to crack and leave." She said the university had made her feel "worthless." In a videotaped statement made available on June 9, Ms. McClure said she was so afraid after being assaulted that "I stayed in my room with a chair under the door knob." She said she traveled from hotel to hotel because she was afraid to live in Jayhawker Towers. At a news conference on June 9, Ms. McClure's father said she is currently in therapy and trying to heal. The class action lawsuit asks for an injunction against KU from asserting that its on-campus housing is safe. And it seeks "restitution . . . of tuition, fees, housing costs and other funds unjustly received by KU through use of deceptive acts and practices." Jim McClure said any money garnered from the lawsuit would go to protecting against sexual assault on college campuses. "We can't change what has happened, but we want to prevent this from happening to a lot of others." The Star's Jesse Newell contributed to this report. KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: "Konarski" Suit Deal OK'd, Case Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David E. Jones approved the parties' settlement agreement in the lawsuit styled RICHARD R. KONARSKI, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KTOWN TRANSPORTATION, INC., LYNDA JEAN ORSBURN, JAYNE PHILLIPS, and WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Case No. 2:15-cv-00781-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.). Judge Jones dismissed the Case with prejudice and without further costs to either party. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XzsUS6qe LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Marquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Ernesto Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Layne Christensen Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01538 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Layne Christensen Company is an oil and gas service company based in Woodlands, Texas, providing a wide variety of services to its clients in the oilfield including providing vibration technology to disconnect various types of tubing and drill string. Plaintiff worked as a Sales and Service Supervisor, rigging up equipment, connecting hoses, setting up mobile command units and establishing the necessary data/power connections. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Tel: 713-751-0025 Fax: 713-751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MDL 2325: Updates on Vaginal Mesh Cases v. Endo ----------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that "Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries, including AMS and/or Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in the U.S. in various state courts and in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325), in Canada, where various class action and individual complaints are pending, and in other countries alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, where available." "We and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other settlement agreements regarding settling up to approximately 49,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs, which were executed at various times since June 2013, were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by each law firm party to the MSA. If certain participation thresholds are not met, then we will have the right to terminate the settlement with that law firm. In addition, one agreement gives us a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in QSFs are included in restricted cash and cash equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other claims that are identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlement, shall be kept confidential by all parties and their counsel. "We expect that valid claims under the MSAs will continue to be settled. However, we intend to vigorously contest pending and future claims that are invalid or in excess of the maximum claim amounts under the MSAs. We are also aware of a substantial number of additional claims or potential claims, some of which may be invalid or contested, for which we lack sufficient information to determine whether any potential liability is probable, and such claims have not been included in our estimated product liability accrual. We intend to contest these claims vigorously. "As of the date of this report, we believe that the current product liability accrual includes all known claims for which liability is probable and estimable. In order to evaluate whether a mesh claim is probable of a loss, we must obtain and evaluate certain information pertaining to each individual claim, including but not limited to the following items: the name and social security number of the plaintiff, evidence of an AMS implant, the date of implant, the date the claim was first asserted to AMS, the date that plaintiff's counsel was retained, and most importantly, medical records establishing the injury alleged. Without access to at least this information and the opportunity to evaluate it, we are not in a position to determine whether a loss is probable for such claims. It is currently not possible to determine the validity or outcome of any additional or potential claims and such claims may result in additional losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. We will continue to monitor the situation, including with respect to any additional claims of which we may later become aware, and, if appropriate, make further adjustments to the product liability accrual based on new information. "The following table presents the changes in the vaginal mesh QSFs and product liability balance during the three months ended March 31, 2016 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Product Liability -------------------------- ----------------- Balance as of December 31, 2015 $578,970 $2,086,176 Additional charges - 2,450 Cash distributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 120,919 - Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (184,678) (184,678) Cash distributions to settle disputes - (1,561) Balance as of March 31, 2016 $515,211 $1,902,387 Approximately $1.53 billion of the total liability amount shown above is classified as Current portion of legal settlement accrual, with the remainder to be paid over time in accordance with the MSA agreements and classified as Long-term legal settlement accrual, less current portion, net in the March 31, 2016 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Charges related to vaginal mesh product liability for all periods presented are reported in Discontinued operations, net of tax in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. "We expect to fund the payments under all current settlement agreements over the course of the next two years, with completion by December 31, 2017. As the funds are disbursed out of the QSFs from time to time, the product liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition, we may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate from the QSFs, which will also decrease the product liability accrual but will not decrease restricted cash and cash equivalents." MDL 2521: 2017 Trial in Lidoderm Suit vs. Endo ---------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial is scheduled to begin in 2017 in the litigation related to Lidoderm(R). Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed a number of cases against our subsidiary EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc (now Allergan plc) and a number of its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as Allergan, Actavis or Watson). Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are individual cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that EPI, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent) and other patents. Some of the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order in April 2014 transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are in the discovery phase of the litigation in accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2017. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation. MDL 2545: 1,111 Testosterone Product Cases v. Endo Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 29, 2016, approximately 1,111 testosterone cases are pending against the Company. The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries, including EPI and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Auxilium), along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications containing testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available." "In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium, and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545. However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be brought against us. We intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in our best interest. As of April 29, 2016, approximately 1,111 cases are currently pending against us; some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action complaint filed in Canada." * * * Endo also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in November 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss claims involving certain testosterone products that were approved pursuant to abbreviated new drug applications, including TESTOPEL(R). Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of this order. In March 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and entered an order permitting certain claims to go forward to the extent they are based on allegations of fraudulent off-label marketing. MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GRETCHEN B. CARREL v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00130-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), files a motion for conditional class certification on Fair Labor Standards Act claim and notice to potential plaintiffs. Ms. Carrel was a non-exempt employee, who regularly worked overtime at MedPro. One of her claims in the lawsuit is that she was shorted overtime pay that was required to be paid under the FLSA. The FLSA claim arises out of MedPro's alleged failure to properly calculate her regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Ms.Carrel also seeks authorization to send court-approved notices to all of MedPro's current and former non-exempt employees, who received a longevity bonus payment in any year since 2013 (the bonus payments were made in August of each year), and who also worked overtime in the same year they received a longevity bonus payment. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nm7cSmaz The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Elliott, Esq. BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP 201 West Wayne Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Telephone: (260) 422-0800 Facsimile: (260) 420-1013 E-mail: melliott@beckmanlawson.com METRO PARKING: "Mirabal" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Alain Debesa Mirabal, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metro Parking Corp. and Myat Maung, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22000-JAL (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs of this action including attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be necessary under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Metro Parking Corp. is a parking lot located in Dade County owned by Myat Maung, where Mirabal worked for Defendants as a chauffeur. 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 MGM RESORTS: Appellant's Opening Brief Due in July 2016 ------------------------------------------------------- MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Appellant's opening brief is currently due in July 2016 in the case, In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL. In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558- RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation." The cases named the Company and certain former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. After transfer of the cases in 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court appointed several employee retirement benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead and co-liaison counsel. In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery commenced. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2014. Defendants filed their opposition to class certification in February 2015. The court heard oral argument on the class certification motion on April 21, 2015 and took the matter under advisement. No trial date was set in this case. In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against the Company and the named former and current directors and officers will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $75 million cash payment by the Company's directors and officers liability insurers. In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed with the court an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. In September 2015, the court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, preliminarily certified the class for settlement purposes only, established class notification procedures and scheduled a hearing to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement. On March 1, 2016 the court conducted a settlement hearing and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Judgment"). At the hearing, the court considered, among other factors, the strength of the available defenses on the merits, the size of the settlement, the non-objections to the settlement by more than 200,000 putative members of the settlement class, and the express endorsement of the settlement by the four court-appointed institutional lead plaintiffs. Only one class member objected to the adequacy of the settlement and the court entering Final Judgment. The court entered the Final Judgment over his objection. In the Final Judgment, the court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class in all respects. The court granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement, dismissed the actions and all released claims with prejudice as to all defendants, and expressly provided that neither the settlement nor associated negotiations and proceedings constitute an admission or evidence of liability, fault or omission by the defendants. On March 25, 2016, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Final Judgment and related orders entered by the court concerning the plan of settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. Appellant's opening brief is currently due in July 2016. The Company and all other defendants plan to vigorously defend the Final Judgment on appeal. If the Final Judgment is affirmed, the Company may pursue an award of damages against the objector on the grounds that the appeal filed was frivolous. If the Final Judgment is reversed on appeal, the Company and other defendants will vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these securities cases. MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Wins Stay for Nine Months in CAIR Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joan A. Lenard entered an order in the lawsuit styled CAIR FLORIDA, INC., et al. v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23324-JAL (S.D. Fla.) granting the Defendants' motion to stay. The Court enters a stay in the Case for a duration of nine months or until the conclusion of the appeals process in United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, No. 15-14117 (appeal docketed Sept. 14, 2015), whichever is sooner. At the conclusion of nine months, the stay will expire by its own terms. Sixty days prior to the expiration of such stay at the conclusion of nine months, Judge Lenard ordered that the Parties must file memoranda as to their respective positions on whether or not any further stay should issue. At that point, the Court will consider the Parties' submissions and reassess the propriety of any further stay by written Order. The Individual Plaintiffs are all Muslim inmates housed in jails operated by the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department whose repeated requests for a Halal diet have been denied. The word "halal" in Arabic simply means "permissible"; thus, a "Halal diet" is food that is permissible for Muslims to consume. Under Islamic principles, a Halal diet, among other things, prohibits the meat of certain animals or their derivatives, requires animals eaten to be slaughtered in a particular manner, prohibits the consumption of alcohol or food containing alcohol, and mandates that the food not come into contact with non-Halal foods. Judge Lenard also: -- denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; -- denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint; -- denied as moot the Parties' joint motion for telephonic status conference and joint motion for an extension of the discovery deadline; -- terminated the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and -- administratively closed the Case. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oNIwf91p MICHAEL FOODS: Still Defends Suits v. Egg Producers --------------------------------------------------- Michael Foods, Inc. and other producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations remain defendants in class action lawsuits, Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of companies, each of which would be part of the purported class in the antitrust action, brought separate actions against defendants. These "opt-out" cases, brought primarily by various grocery chains and food companies, assert essentially the same allegations as in the main action. The opt-out cases are also pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they are being treated as related to the main action. On September 18, 2015, the court denied the motion of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs for class certification. On September 21, 2015, the court granted the motion of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify an egg-products subclass. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. "We do not believe it is possible to estimate the loss in connection with these litigated matters. Accordingly, we cannot predict what impact, if any, these matters and any results from such matters could have on our future results of operations," the Company said. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Player Files Concussion Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- WATE6 On Your Side reports that former University of Tennessee football player filed a lawsuit against the Southeastern Conference and the NCAA on June 8. The law firm representing Orenthal James Owens, Edelson PC, told WATE 6 On Your Side that the former player filed the lawsuit because of the "long lasting effects of a concussion." The injury occurred while he was playing at UT. Mr. Owens played for the university from 2000 to 2003. He suffered multiple injuries while with the Vols. In the lawsuit, Mr. Owens claims the SEC and the NCAA were reckless when it came to the safety and health of UT athletes. He claims the governing bodies knew of the possible brain injuries from the sport, but concealed the information in order to make money. The document goes on to say the NCAA and SEC did not create procedures to prevent future health problems, therefore, "breaching" the contracts with each player. The lawsuit quotes the NCAA's claim regarding the safety of student athletes, "dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life." College football players can receive hits to the head that are equivalent to over a hundred car accidents per season, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit mentions the possible results of brain injuries: memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), Parkinson's disease and more. "Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle and choke their brains," says the document. The lawsuit is asking for the defendants to financially provide for damages including: past, current and future medical expenses; lost of time; lost of future earnings and attorney fees. Owens is asking for a jury to be provided for the trial. Three other players from Duke University, Ohio State and the University of Michigan have filed separate lawsuits against the NCAA to form the class action. This comes after six lawsuits were filed in May against the association. According to The New York Times, the players are seeking financial relief for their injuries. In the class action filed in May, the plaintiffs played in the Big Ten, the SEC and the Pacific-12. In January, a federal judge approved a settlement between former athletes with head injuries and the NCAA. However, the settlement did not mention financial relief for the plaintiffs. Instead, it was for $70 million to help former athletes monitor brain injuries, according to the Times. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Defend "Evans" Suit v. Teams --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that retired players on June 9, fought to revive claims that National Football League teams pumped them with painkillers to get them back on the field, disregarding long-term effects on their health. Lead plaintiff Etopia Evans, the wife of the late Charles Evans, who played for the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Ravens, filed a federal class action against all 32 NFL teams in May 2015. The case was transferred from Maryland to Northern California in March. During a hearing in June 9, an attorney representing the NFL clubs urged U.S. District Judge William Alsup to dismiss the lawsuit as he did with a similar class action, Dent v. NFL, in 2014. "There's no difference at all between these two cases," NFL clubs' attorney Gregg Levy said. "The allegations here are the same." Class attorney Phillip Closius countered that unlike Dent, this class action names individual clubs as defendants, not the NFL. In Dent, Alsup found the league had no duty to "intervene or stop mistreatment" by the NFL's independent clubs and that the claims were governed by collective bargaining agreements subject to arbitration. That ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit last year. "The allegation was the NFL only had a supervisory role for the teams, not the players," Closius said. "In this case, that's inapplicable because there's no immediate step between the plaintiffs and defendants." The former players allege the clubs conspired since at least 1964 to have trainers dole out pills and inject players with painkillers, sometimes mixing them with other drugs in dangerous cocktails, to get them back on the field to drive profits for the league. "Everyone around them in the NFL didn't care their long-term health was being destroyed to get them back on the field," Closius said. "They profited to the tune of billions and harmed their players in the long term." The lead plaintiff's late husband, Charles Evans, died alone in a jail cell in 2008 two days after he was imprisoned for failing to pay child support. He spent his money on painkillers, which he got addicted to while playing professional football, according to the complaint. Closius said the NFL clubs hid the side effects of the drugs from the players, and in some cases, even lied about how the painkillers might affect them and their health. Levy countered that according to collective bargaining agreements, the physicians had a duty to disclose symptoms and prescribe treatment. The contracts in no way obligate the clubs to disclose information on side effects of drugs, he said. Levy also disputed allegations that trainers, not physicians, doled out painkillers to players on regular basis during games. Closius painted Levy's arguments on collective bargaining agreements as a red herring, pointing out that players allege the clubs engaged in a "global conspiracy" to violate federal law by misrepresenting the side effects and risks of dangerous medications given to players. "We're not obligated to sue every member of the conspiracy in one lawsuit," Closius said. "We're not interested in the doctors and trainers. We're not interested in the henchman. We're interested in those who profited with millions of dollars." Alsup ended the hearing after a half hour of debate, asking both sides to submit follow-up briefs by June 14 before he renders his decision on the motion to dismiss. With 13 named plaintiffs, the Evans suit seeks to certify a class of all retired NFL players who were given painkillers by team doctors and trainers without a valid prescription, examination, diagnosis or warning from the early 1960s to present. Levy is with Covington Burling in Washington, D.C. Closius -- pclosius@mdattorney.com -- is with Silverman Thompson Slutkin White in Baltimore. NATIONAL RECOVERY: Zirogiannis Renews Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JEANETTE ZIROGIANNIS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03954-DRH-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), files her renewed motion to certify a class of: (a) all natural person in the State of New York; (b) to whom Defendant sent a written communication containing language materially similar to Exhibit C of the Complaint; (c) subsequent to a request for a validation pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (d) which was not returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Service; (e) during the one year immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint and ending 21 days thereafter. Ms. Zirogiannis also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative and to appoint Abraham Kleinman, Esq., as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jVYrQVWy The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 NESTOR CHAYELE: "Sanchez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Edit Idalia Trochez Sanchez, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nestor Chayele and Yolanda Gomez, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21975-UU (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2016), seeks double damages, reasonable attorney fees, overtime wages still owing, costs, interest and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sanchez worked for Defendants as a domestic live-out housekeeper. 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 NEW YORK: NYC Fire Dept. Faces Electrical Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against The NYC Fire Dept. The case is captioned International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 3, Gregory M. Seabrook, Steven Sutter, Robert Bajor, Dudley Placide, Jr., Ismael Ortiz, Kr. and Joe Adams, on behalf of themselves, and a class consisting of similarly situated persons, in the matter of the application of, the Plaintiff, v. The NYC Fire Dept. and the City of NY, the Defendant, Case No. 4338/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Dawn M. Jimenez Salta. The NYC Fire Dept., officially the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY), is a department of the government of New York City that provides fire protection, technical rescue, primary response to biological, chemical and radioactive hazards, and emergency medical services to the five boroughs of New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Goldberg, Esq. 5 West 37th St, 7th Fl, AFLCIO New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 575-4400 OLD NATIONAL: Hearing Held to Approve $4.75MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Old National Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit will be subject to final Circuit Court approval which was scheduled for June 13, 2016. Information on the case is available at: http://www.oldnationaloverdraftfees.com/ In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our checking account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar to other class action complaints filed against other financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial amounts. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from highest to lowest." Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. On June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment asserting the law as applied to the material facts not in dispute should result in judgment in favor of Old National. On September 16, 2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and the Motion was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014. Subsequently, Old National sought and was granted leave to appeal the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 11, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and the parties fully briefed the matter as of February 23, 2015. On April 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the Circuit Court's denial of Old National's Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals rejected Old National's contention that all of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by federal law but did agree that plaintiffs' state law claims of conversion, unconscionability and unjust enrichment were unsupported under Indiana law. The dismissal of these claims removes any claims which would entitle plaintiffs to treble damages. The Court of Appeals determined Old National had not negated plaintiffs' state law claim for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing as to the deposit account agreement and remanded that claim back to the Circuit Court. On May 22, 2015, Old National filed a Petition to Transfer the Case to the Indiana Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to accept an appeal of the remaining count. On July 23, 2015, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to accept transfer of the case. Thereafter, the case returned to the trial court for further proceedings on the sole remaining count. The trial court set the case for trial on May 9, 2016 along with various other case management deadlines. On January 11, 2016, Old National filed its second Motion for Summary Judgment addressing the issues discussed in the Court of Appeals opinion. Simultaneously, other deadlines relating to, among other things, witness and exhibit disclosures and expert disclosures were approaching which presented the parties an opportunity to evaluate the pending case. On April 5, 2016, Old National entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs providing for a cash payment from Old National in the amount of $4,750,000 in exchange for a full release and dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. By entering into the settlement agreement, Old National has not admitted any liability with respect to the lawsuit. The settlement amount had previously been accrued for in the December 31, 2015 financial statements. On April 14, 2016, the Circuit Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, entered an order authorizing notice of the settlement to the class participants, and vacated the May 9, 2016 trial date. Following notice of the settlement to the class participants, the settlement agreement will be subject to final Circuit Court approval which was scheduled for June 13, 2016. Although Old National cannot guarantee that the Circuit Court will approve the settlement agreement, Old National believes it is reasonably likely that the settlement agreement will be approved. In the event that the settlement agreement is not approved by the Circuit Court or is otherwise rejected, the Circuit Court will reissue a new trial date in 2017. OLD REPUBLIC: 10 of 12 Class Actions Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that ten of the twelve class action lawsuits have been dismissed. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases. ORACLE CORP: "Klarfeld" Suit Alleges Accounting Malpractice ----------------------------------------------------------- Grover M. Klarfeld, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oracle Corporation, Lawrence J. Ellison, Mark Vincent Hurd and Safra Ada Catz, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02966-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover damages for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint says the Defendant failed to disclose that Oracle used improper accounting practices to inflate their cloud computing revenues by millions of dollars in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Oracle develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts, and supports database and middleware software, application software, cloud infrastructure, hardware systems, and related services worldwide. Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6449 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - 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 ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Wants 2nd Amended SEPTA Complaint Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Defendants have timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in the putative class action filed by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA"). The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, "Orrstown Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") on May 25, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants was expanded to include the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended, alleges among other things that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22, 2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule. The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. Given the litigation is still in the pleading stage, it is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. PALOS VERDES, CA: Has Until July 6 to Decide on Surfer Gang Fort ---------------------------------------------------------------- Garrett Therolf, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Palos Verdes Estates issued a letter saying that the city will not meet a state deadline to make plans for an illegal stone "fort" used by a group of aggressively territorial surfers widely known as the "Lunada Bay Boys." The city's statement came in response to a letter the Coastal Commission sent on June 7 telling the city that it has until July 6 to develop a plan to tear down the crudely built structure or begin a permitting process that would include measures to improve access to one of the state's most coveted -- and hostile -- surf breaks. Coastal Commission Enforcement Officer Jordan Sanchez wrote that it was unlikely that he would be able to approve a permit for the fort because of its location on public land, but he said a smaller structure might be possible if the city takes steps to improve public access. The city, he said, should take make a plan that "clearly identifies, through signage at major streets, at the coastline, and on trail maps, the structure as a public amenity and open to all." But city manager Anton Dahlerbruch instead promised only a beach cleanup and said he hoped to develop a preliminary plan for the fort by September -- seven months after the coastal commission first raised the issue, and two months past the state's deadline. The simple structure is made of stone and concrete, and Mr. Dahlerbruch said the problems it creates have thus far exceeded his ability to solve. "The complexity of the situation has presented no easy or immediate answer," he wrote. Noaki Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the commission, said the agency had no immediate response to Mr. Dahlerbruch's letter of non- compliance. In internal correspondence obtained earlier this year by The Times through a public records request, Mr. Dahlerbruch told the affluent community's city council that the Lunada Bay Homeowners Assn. was urging the city to focus on policing the bullying in hopes that "the existence and use of the patio becomes irrelevant." A public records request for documents of the planning process to permit or tear it down yielded no documents. For decades, witnesses have accused the Bay Boys, some of whom are reportedly middle-aged, of bombarding outsiders with dirt clods, slashing their tires and assaulting them in the water -- sometimes coordinating the attacks with walkie-talkies. Police reports over the years show that the fort has repeatedly been a site of alleged drug and alcohol use that victims said fueled harassment of outsiders. One alleged victim said she was sexually harassed and doused with beer in retaliation for appearing in a news article about the problems. Earlier this year, an El Segundo police officer who says he has been harassed by the Bay Boys joined other alleged victims in a class-action lawsuit. The officer, Cory Spencer, and Diana Milena Reed, the alleged harassment victim, asked a federal judge to prevent members of the gang from congregating at Lunada Bay. The suit also targets the city of Palos Verdes Estates, asking a judge to require officials to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by the surfers. PETAL PRODUCTIONS: "Cayuqueo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Claudio Cayuqueo, and Christian Solis on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Petal Productions Events Corp., a Florida for Profit Corporation and Ralph Grosz, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21982-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses, pre-judgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Petal Productions Events Corp. is an event planning and decoration company in the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County. Plaintiffs worked setting up event decorations, lighting and flower arrangements and as drivers. Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors thus denied proper overtime compensation for overtime hours. Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3517 E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com PRECOR INC: Ill. Court Certifies Two Classes in "Mednick" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber entered a memorandum opinion and order in the lawsuit titled GARY MEDNICK and STEVEN BAYER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PRECOR, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03624 (N.D. Ill.) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting the Defendant's motion to strike and exclude opinion of the Plaintiffs' Expert Craig Henriquez, Ph.D. Plaintiff Gary Mednick filed the class action lawsuit against the Defendant on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals seeking to remedy alleged unfair and deceptive business practices arising from Precor's marketing and sale of exercise equipment incorporating "touch sensor heart rate" monitoring technology. Plaintiff Steven Bayer filed a separate lawsuit alleging similar claims. Subsequently, the two cases were consolidated before the Court. The Plaintiffs seek class certification for breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of a nationwide class, defined as: All persons within the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased a Precor fitness machine equipped with a touch sensor heart rate monitor from either Precor or a third-party retailer. Excluded from the Nationwide Class are . . . those who purchased Precor fitness machines for resale. The Plaintiffs also seek class certification for violations of 10 state consumer fraud laws, on behalf of a multi-state class, defined as: All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased a Precor fitness machine equipped with a touch sensor heart rate monitor from either Precor or a third-party retailer. Excluded from the Multi-State Class are . . . those who purchased Precor fitness machines for resale. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VpN9S7aU PROPETRO SERVICES: "Munoz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Manny Munoz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Services, Inc., Dale Redman, Jeff Smith, David Sledge, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00133 (W.D. Tex., June 2, 2016), seeks monetary and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs and overtime compensation under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. ProPetro is an independent provider of oil and gas well drilling, stimulation, cementing and coiled tubing services, where Plaintiff worked as a field engineer. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Dale Redman, Jeff Smith and David Sledge served as CEO, CFO and COO, respectively, of ProPetro. Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 RAYONIER INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a securities class action remains pending. Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the "November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled respectively: * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474. On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015. On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2015, which are pending. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred nor can the range of any such loss be estimated. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Sorbents Filed Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ringcentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS), filed on April 21, 2016, a putative class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax cover sheets used by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions over the Company's system. SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection with its conversion claim. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint, and discovery has not yet commenced. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and it is too early in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. Ringcentral is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS, solutions for the way employees communicate in business. ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Settlement Discussions for $3.3 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is in discussions to settle a securities class action and estimates a potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million. A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17 through November 6, 2014. The original complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the Company's sales." The alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on November 6, 2014. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June 23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement during an extended putative class period, running from July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it failed to disclose that the Company's customers purportedly were experiencing false positives and other usage issues with the Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from the customers' employees' inability to follow the Company's Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not revealed until March 26, 2015. Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on October 9, 2015. The parties agreed to attempt to resolve the case through mediation and that process is continuing. The Company is in settlement discussions and currently estimates a potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million. The Company believes that the claims in the securities class action are without merit, and, if the case cannot be settled, the Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously, and expects to incur costs associated with defending the securities class action. The Company has various insurance policies related to the risks associated with its business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that the Company would be successful in its defense of the securities class action if the case cannot be settled, and there is no assurance that the insurance coverage would be sufficient or that the insurance carriers would cover all claims or litigation costs. Roka Bioscience, Inc. is focused on the development and commercialization of molecular assay technologies for the detection of foodborne pathogens. The Company was established in September 2009 through the acquisition of industrial testing assets and technology from Gen-Probe Incorporated, which was subsequently acquired by Hologic, Inc. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss "Baker" Suit Due June 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC)(S.D. Cal.), an "Amended Complaint with Jury Demand Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against James Atchison, Blackstone Capital Markets L.P., James M Heaney, Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Marc Swanson" was filed by Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System on May 31, 2016. Then on June 6, the District Court Judge Michael M. Anello entered an Order directing: -- the Defendants to file a single consolidated motion to dismiss, with a memorandum of law no greater than 40 pages, on or before June 29, 2016; -- the Lead Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, which shall not exceed 40 pages, on or before July 27, 2016; -- the Defendants to file their reply in further support of their motion to dismiss, which shall not exceed 18 pages, on or before Aug. 10, 2016. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed on September 9, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015. The Company and the other defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on September 18, 2015. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiffs had until May 31, 2016 to file a further amended complaint. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Consumer Class Suits Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company still defends a consumer class action in california. On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall Matter"). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld "experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). Four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the "Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne Matter"). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA. The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The Court granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25, 2016. That motion is fully briefed and is awaiting a ruling from the Court. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Court Vacates on Hearing in "Anderson" -------------------------------------------------------------- California Judge Jeffrey S White issued an order dated May 23, 2016, vacating the hearing on motions filed in the case, Anderson et al v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Case No. 4:15-cv-02172 (N.D. Cal.). Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported class action was filed on April 13, 2015, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson Matter"). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"). The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The First Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15:cv-2172-SC. On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion is fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments. The Company has opposed the motion. The district court has scheduled a hearing on both the Company's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint for June 3, 2016. SHERWOOD LUMBER: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Agreed Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Alvarez, James D'Annunzio and Keith Gozevich, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated v. Sherwood Lumber Corp., Joshua Goodman, Andy Goodman, Michael Goodman, Dave Gaudreau and John Does 1-6, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02757-JFB- AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2016), seeks statutory overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week, full payment for all wages earned in accordance with the agreed upon terms of employment, illegal deductions, relief due and owing from failure to provide proper meal periods, interest on all compensation improperly withheld, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, monetary damages, and declaratory and affirmative relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York State Labor Law, New York State Labor Regulations, breach of commission agreements and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes and ordinances. Sherwood Lumber Corp., is a New York corporation with its principal headquarters located at 300 Corporate Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749 with an office located in Florida at 1120 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 231, Tampa, Florida 33602. D'Annunzio and Gozevich worked as inside salespersons at Defendants' Tampa Florida location while Alvarez worked at their New York location. Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Tel: (631) 589-7242 Fax: (631) 563-7475 Email: SZabell@laborlawsny.com SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that lead plaintiffs have filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss their class action lawsuit. On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names the Company and certain of its officers as defendants, or Sientra Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to approve their selection on lead counsel. On December 10, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel. On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter Defendants. On March 21, 2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to Dismiss, the consolidated amended complaints. On April 20, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss. Sientra is a medical aesthetics company. It sells breast implants and breast tissue expanders. SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Urged Court to Remand --------------------------------------------- Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand. On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's offering documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior Court, or the Motions to Remand. On January 19, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January 26, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sientra is a medical aesthetics company. It sells breast implants and breast tissue expanders. SOLARCITY CORP: "Gibbs" Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Call ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carole Gibbs and Arthur Colby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Solarcity Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-11010-DHH (D. Mass., June 1, 2016), seeks actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. SolarCity is a solar energy system installer located at 3055 Clearview Way, San Mateo, California 94402. It conducts wide-scale telemarketing campaign to promote its services by way of repeatedly making unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones, including cellular telephones and numbers, without consent and using an automatic telephone dialling system. Plaintiff is represented by: Julie M. Tolek, Esq. THINK PINK LAW 160 Speen Street, #202 Framingham, MA 01701 Tel: (617) 752-1739 Fax: (617) 752-1739 Email: julie@thinkpinklaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 S. Biscaynve Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Tel: (720) 213-0675 Fax: (303) 927-0809 Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com SOULCYCLE: First-Time Rider Files Class Action Over Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that from "spin rage" to expiration-date drama, cycling studios don't just need good instructors, they also need good lawyers. SoulCycle has raced into the hearts of the Hollywood elite, but a first-time rider says she was injured because an instructor bullied her, and now the company is facing the latest in a series of lawsuits filed since it was purchased by mega-gym Equinox in 2011. Carmen Farias is suing SoulCycle and instructor Angela Davis -- who is a bit of a celebrity herself -- for gross negligence, according to the complaint filed May 31 in L.A. County Superior Court. She says the lack of instruction, design of the bike, volume of the music and darkness of the room contributed to injuries that continue to cause her physical and mental pain and suffering. Ms. Farias says she decided to give the sport a spin as part of a corporate outing in July 2014. She says she had never been to a spinning class of any kind and, while she had ridden a traditional bicycle before, she had not engaged in a physical fitness regimen for several years. An unnamed employee helped Ms. Farias clip into her cycle, but no one ever showed her how it worked or warned her not to get out of the seat while the flywheel was spinning. As class began, Ms. Davis turned the music up and the lights down, so the room "was cast into a shadowy darkness." During the ride, Ms. Farias could hear instructors "mocking some of the other riders" because they weren't keeping up with the pace. When her legs began to weaken and she tried to stop pedaling, she says Ms. Davis ridiculed her for slowing down and someone -- possibly Ms. Davis -- barked at the riders that, "We don't take breaks." "Carmen was embarrassed that she was being called out in front of her bosses and fellow employees," states the lawsuit. "The shame caused Carmen to momentarily attempt to pedal faster." Ms. Farias says she quickly realized she needed to stop, but didn't know how. "Fatigue and disorientation overcame Carmen and she fell to her right and off of the saddle of the spinning cycle," states the complaint. "Although her head and torso were now lying to the right side of the spinning cycle, Carmen's left and right foot remained locked to the pedals." The momentum of the flywheel kept the pedals turning and her left ankle was repeatedly dislocated, she claims, leaving her "catastrophically injured." She says she completed and signed the new rider waiver form, but left it on her desk at work and any waiver she may have signed while checking in at the Beverly Hills studio is a violation of public policy and unenforceable because SoulCycle failed to provide her with a copy. A SoulCycle spokeswoman tells The Hollywood Reporter the company does not comment on ongoing litigation. SoulCycle has a cult following, and Davis is building one of her own. She has more than 41,000 followers on Instagram, and A-listers from Lea Michele to Kerry Washington have tweeted their praise of the instructor -- oh, and Oprah celebrated her 60th birthday with a spin led by Davis. But Ms. Farias says Ms. Davis and her fellow instructors failed to follow SoulCycle's own policies and procedures, which require a 15-minute introduction to spinning and instruction on how to properly and safely use the bike and what to do in response to fatigue. The lawsuit claims Davis skipped this because it's a "non-compensated task" -- which was an issue in two class-action wage and hour lawsuits against the company. According to an SEC filing, the New York lawsuit was dismissed and the California suit settled. "Without admitting liability, the Company was successful in settling the remaining claims on a single plaintiff basis for an all-inclusive payment (including attorneys' fees) of $0.1 million," states the filing. SoulCycle is also currently facing a potential class-action lawsuit from customers who are unhappy with its policies regarding the expiration dates on prepaid packages of classes. They claim the series, as they're called, expire too quickly and result in wasted purchases -- in violation of state and federal law. SoulCycle has argued that series shouldn't be treated as gift cards because they can't be used to purchase anything, but U.S. District Court Judge George King denied a motion to dismiss on those grounds. But perhaps the most colorful spinning-centric lawsuit is the one filed against Equinox Holdings, SoulCycle's parent company, stemming from an incident of "spin rage" in 2007. Stuart Sugarman was spinning along, cheering and shouting things like "You go, girl!" in a Manhattan Equinox gym. Christopher Carter, who was a few bikes down, quickly became agitated. Mr. Sugarman claims Carter verbally assaulted him before he dismounted from his bike and in a "spin rage" picked up the front of Mr. Sugarman's cycle and threw him into the wall of the classroom, "leaving a hole in the sheetrock where his cycle penetrated." The New York Post described it as a "psycho spin-out." Mr. Carter was acquitted, but Mr. Sugarman sued him and the gym, claiming "mental and physical anguish, economic loss, pain and suffering, humiliation and damage to reputation" as a result of the incident. The judge dismissed the company as a defendant in 2008, but litigation between the two spinners is pending. STARTEK WORKFORCE: "Ayala" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- Jose Ayala, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Startek Workforce Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00367 (W.D. Wis., June 1, 2016), seeks all wages owed, an equal amount in liquidated damages, payment of attorney fees and costs and all other relief as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is into the installation of video, high definition programming, digital video recording, high-speed internet and telephone services. Plaintiff worked as an installer, performing installation of internet, telephone and cable television and was misclassified as a piece-rate contractor, thus denied overtime. Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina J. Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3487 SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Rowe" Suit to Recover Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Bill Rowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a SPC Rentals and Warrior Energy Services, Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00190 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, costs of this action including attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be necessary under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants specialize in providing oilfield services to various drilling and production companies. They jointly employed Plaintiff as a crane operator. Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. Lee & Braziel, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the City of Livonia plaintiff has amended its complaint to add additional factual allegations. On February 22, 2016, two complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan by alleged shareholders of the Company against the Company, the following members of the Company's Board of Directors: Gary Torgow, David Provost, Gary Collins, Max Berlin, Jennifer Granholm, Paul Hodges III, Ronald Klein, Barbara Mahone, Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas Schellenberg, and Arthur Weiss (collectively "individual defendants"), and Chemical Financial Corporation ("Chemical"). These complaints are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB. These complaints purport to assert claims derivatively on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants, and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the individual defendants and Chemical. The putative class in both complaints consists of all shareholders of the Company who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. Each of the complaints relate to the Company's merger agreement with Chemical and allege, among other things, that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that undervalues the Company and includes preclusive deal protection provisions. The City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System's complaint also alleges that Chemical aided and abetted the Company's directors in breaching their duties to the Company's shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual defendants have been unjustly enriched. The complaints request that the court declare that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and have been unjustly enriched, enjoin the merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, direct the Company's directors to exercise their fiduciary duties, rescind the merger agreement to the extent that it is already implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper. The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21, 2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. served as a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an alleged conflict of interest, that the Company's board acted under actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material information about the proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. TALMER BANCORP: Bushansky State Court Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Bushansky complaint in Michigan state court has been voluntarily dismissed. On March 22, 2016, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder of the Company, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Gary Torgow et. al. Case No. 2016-152112-CB. The defendants named in this lawsuit were the same as those named in the Lee and City of Livonia complaints. The allegations and relief sought in this action were also substantially similar to the Lee and City of Livonia complaints. On April 14, 2016, the City of Livonia filed a motion to consolidate the three cases pending in state court and appoint the City of Livonia as lead plaintiff. The Bushansky complaint was voluntarily dismissed on April 18, 2016. TALMER BANCORP: 3 Class Suits Pending in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------ Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by alleged shareholders of the Company against the Company, the following members of the Company's Board of Directors: Gary Torgow, David Provost, Gary Collins, Max Berlin, Jennifer Granholm, Paul Hodges III, Ronald Klein, Barbara Mahone, Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas Schellenberg, and Arthur Weiss (collectively "individual defendants"), and Chemical. The first action was filed on April 6, 2016, styled as Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Gary Torgow, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11261-TLL- PTM. This complaint purports to bring an individual claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the individual defendants, and an individual claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Chemical and the individual defendants. The second action was filed on April 25, 2016, styled as Kevin Nicholl v. Gary Torgow, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11482-TLL-PTM. This complaint purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of the Company and individually on behalf of a putative class consisting of all shareholders of the Company who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. This action alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the individual defendants; violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; violations of the individual defendants' fiduciary duties, asserted both derivatively and on behalf of the class; and a class action claim against Chemical for aiding and abetting. The third action was filed was filed on April 27, 2016, styled as Stephen Bushansky v. Talmer Bancorp, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:16- cv-11511-AJT-RSW. This is a putative class action complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all shareholders of the Company who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. This complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. Each of these three complaints relate to the Company's merger agreement with Chemical and the Company's and Chemical's Registration Statement on Form S-4. The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of the Company and its Board of Directors approved a transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that undervalues the Company and includes preclusive deal protection provisions. The complaints also allege that the Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material information about the proposed merger. Each of the complaints requests various forms of remedies, including among other things, that the court enjoin the merger from being consummated, rescind the merger agreement to the extent it has already been implemented, declare violations of federal law, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper. Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. At this stage, it is not possible to predict whether any additional lawsuits will be filed and, if one is, the outcome of any such proceeding or its impact on the Company or the merger. TEXTURA CORPORATION: Mediation Scheduled for June 24 ---------------------------------------------------- Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have agreed to mediation and such mediation is scheduled for June 24, 2016. On October 7, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming us and one of our current and one of our former executive officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2015. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by us and one of our current and one of our former executive officers for making allegedly materially false and misleading statements and by failing to disclose allegedly material facts regarding its business and operations between June 7, 2013 and September 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. We filed a motion to dismiss on May 4, 2015, which was granted in part and denied in part on March 3, 2016. The only claim that remains is the plaintiffs' assertion that the Company should have provided more information about the business background of its then- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in its SEC filings. The parties have agreed to mediation and such mediation is scheduled for June 24, 2016. THERANOS INC: Sued Over Deceptive Blood Testing Unit Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California consumer is suing a medical device manufacturer, alleging it defrauded the public by knowingly marketing a blood testing unit that delivered incorrect results. R.G., using initials to protect his privacy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit May 30 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Theranos Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance and 10 unnamed defendants, alleging unfair business practices, false advertising and fraud. According to the complaint, Theranos sold the Edison device to Walgreens in-store clinics, alleging it was able to draw a small amount of blood from a patient's finger to test for various conditions. However, the suit says, the Food and Drug Administration found the unit failed quality control standards and rendered inaccurate results. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial, reimbursement for tests using the Edison device, disgorgement of profits from the sale of the device, a ban on further advertising of the unit and additional damages under consumer fraud laws. They are represented by attorneys Richard D. McCune, David C. Wright, Elaine S. Kusel, Joseph Sauder, Matthew Schelkopf and Joseph Kinney of McCuneWright LLP in Redlands, California, and Berwyn, Pennsylvania. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 5:16-cv-02891 THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE: Class Cert. Sought in "Urrutia" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JUAN URRUTIA Y URRUTIA, ROMULO DE PAZ BRITO, and EFRAIN ALVAREZ YAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC, CARL HEMPHILL, MARIANA HEMPHILL, and MJC LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06416-LDD (E.D. Pa.), file with the Court their motion for class and representative action certification. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 for the filing of false tax information returns with the U.S. government on behalf of similarly situated H-2B workers employed by the Defendants under H-2B non-immigrant visas as a class action for work performed in 2010 and thereafter. Plaintiffs Urrutia and de Paz bring claims against the Defendants as representatives of similarly situated workers, who were employed by the Defendants under H-2B non-immigrant visas. They also ask the Court to order the Defendants within 10 days after entry of an order to provide the information to the Plaintiffs' attorneys as to each H-2B worker employed on visas issued for employment with either Defendants Three Seasons Landscape Contracting Services, Inc., or MJC Labor Solutions, LLC for the years 2010 to the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WkEVrrPt The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur Read, Esq. Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq. FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS 699 Ranstead Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 733-0878 E-mail: aread@friendsfw.org sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org TRU-FLEX METAL: Faces Adams Pointe Suit in W.D. Penn. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp. The case is captioned Adams Pointe I, L.P., Adams Pointe II, L.P., Bayberry North Associates L.P., and Betters Real Estate Holdings, L.P., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp., Tru-Flex, LLC, Pro-Flex LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00750-CRE (W.D. Penn., June 7, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Cynthia Reed Eddy. Tru-Flex manufactures strip wound interlocked hoses. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. PEIRCE LAW OFFICES 2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281 7229 Facsimile: (412) 281 4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Louisiana Businessman Opts Out of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Stockman, writing for LawNewz.com, reports that Louisiana businessman Nicholas Perioux, a former Trump University student, doesn't want anything to do with a class action lawsuit filed against the presumptive Republican nominee. He filed an exclusion request form, which was entered into the court docket on June 9. Mr. Perioux was considered part of the Trump University "class." He would have been eligible for any potential settlement or jury award if the fraud lawsuit was successful. Mr. Perioux, from Lake Charles, is a real estate developer and attributes his success to what he learned while taking seminars at Trump University. That's why he told us he doesn't want to be involved in any lawsuit. "I am doing well in real estate," he told LawNewz.com. "They did everything they could do. The information was legitimate." Mr. Perioux told a local television station that he took a three- day Trump University seminar at a cost of about $1,500. "Trump's information -- he's very creative and he can definitely get you to look outside the box -- marketing, branding, hands down. I definitely walked away and used some information from what I've learned," he told the television station. Despite Mr. Perioux's support, there are hundreds of students, as well as some staff members, who claim that the program was a scam aimed at hoodwinking students into handing over money. "I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money," one former Trump University worker wrote. There are currently two ongoing class action lawsuits against Trump University. Mr. Perioux opted out of both of them. He wouldn't divulge if he was Trump supporter. However, he said he would call LawNewz.com back with more information. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Discovery Underway in "Cohen" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that while much of the nation's attention remains focused on comments Donald Trump made about a federal judge, the recent filing of a deposition transcript sheds light on the presidential candidate's involvement in issues surrounding the high-profile Trump University court case. A set of video clips from the deposition were also lodged in San Diego federal court on June 8. Documents released in the Trump University case contain a lengthy deposition from the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, in which he defends the business practices of his now-defunct university and addresses his previous endorsements of Hillary Clinton -- his likely opponent in the race for president of the United States. The case, Cohen v. Trump, is a class action lawsuit brought by a group of plaintiffs who claim the so-called university was a swindle using the color of an educational institution to trick prospective students into forking over thousands of dollars to attend seminars at hotels around the country. The seminars were more focused on encouraging attendees to spend even more money on upgrade packages than on dispensing material of any educational value, the plaintiffs claim. The case is a civil RICO case, which contains accusations of racketeering and sustained corruption and also means the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and attorney's fees that can be tripled should they prevail. Central to the case against Donald Trump in particular, are the assertions made by the university that Trump himself "hand-picked" the instructors for the classes. The lengthy deposition was conducted by Jason Forge, attorney for the plaintiffs, and was taken on two separate occasions, once in New York in December and again in January in Las Vegas. The deposition is riddled with redactions and, in many instances, Trump explains a rather crucial piece of his involvement with the university's operation before the document inexplicably cuts off and jumps several pages to a new subject. Nevertheless, the deposition contains significant testimony from the Republican presumptive nominee. In it, Trump appears to distance himself from the day-to-day running of the university, saying he delegated much of the hiring and administration of the operation to former Trump University president Michael Sexton. "I would see some resumes, but I told him, you know, I want very good people," Trump said during the deposition. Trump's statement contradicts a statement provided by Sexton during a deposition stating Trump had no personal involvement with the hires and did not look at resumes for potential instructors or so-called mentors. Mentors were often employed by the university to take attendees on tours of the local real estate market while dispensing particular advice purportedly unique to Trump's approach to real estate. The mentorship cost an additional $35,000 on top of the $1,500 an individual had to pay to gain entrance to the three-day seminars. Trump was shown video of the tour lead plaintiff Art Cohen participated in with an unnamed mentor and reacted unfavorably, according to the deposition. "Frankly, I think he probably, just by the way he had answered a couple of the questions reminded me of 'Saturday Night Live,'" Trump tells his interrogator of the mentor's performance. "But I think he probably embellished his record to the people that did the hiring." Later in the deposition, Trump said he didn't personally interview instructors or mentors for the school because he was running other aspects of his business empire and "it didn't seem necessary because I thought the school was doing well." Trump's lawyers argued in a motion for summary judgment filed in April that his non-involvement with the selection instructors and mentors is not fatal to the case because "references to 'secrets' 'hand-picked' instructors, and 'university' are classic examples of sales puffery common to advertising everywhere." Trump said incompetent people slip through the cracks in all businesses but the lion's share of his instructors were good people and that at any rate, customers were given materials with valuable information. Further along in the deposition, Forge asks Trump about his formerly positive positions regarding Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, pointing to a blog post Trump published on Dec. 2, 2008. "The fourth paragraph you wrote of Hillary Clinton: 'Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person and so is her husband.' Forge says in the deposition. "And then you wrote, "Bill Clinton was a great president.'" "Did you believe that sentiment when you wrote it in this blog?" Forge asks. Trump answered by saying, "it was a long time ago." "I mean, at the time -- I mean, I was fine with it at the time," Trump said. "I think in retrospect, looking back, it was not a great presidency because of his scandals." Forge further presses Trump about comments made in a March 13, 2008, blog post, where he said Hillary Clinton "would make a great president or vice president." Trump said he made those comments when he was still in business, when it was important to maintain good relationships with all politicians, and before he entered the political arena and began to make closer inspections of politicians' policies and character. "As a businessman, I think it was something I never really gave much thought to," he said. "Now that I see what she's done and how she's handled herself and how she's handled her emails and all of the problems that she's got, I would say she wouldn't make a very good vice president or president." Due to redactions, it is unclear where the discussion leads or how Trump's previous comments about the Clintons versus his current stance relate to the case. Forge did not return an email requesting comment on his line of questioning June 8. An email requesting comment was also sent to Trump's communication director, Hope Hicks, but was not returned by press time. The case captioned, ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, VS. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant, No. 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.). TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump's Deposition Videos Not Public ------------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge threw cold water June 9, on the media scramble to see videos of deposition testimony Donald Trump gave in a class action over the presumptive Republican nominee's now-defunct real estate school. The Plaintiff's video submissions shall not be filed as exhibits, but instead returned to Plaintiff, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel said. Trump sat for deposition on two separate occasions, Dec. 10, 2015, and Jan. 21, of this year, in connection to a class action over Trump University. Art Cohn is the lead plaintiff in the case, which says Trump used the color of an educational institution bilk thousands of dollars from students. Rather than getting any real educational value from enrollment, the students say Trump University seminars at hotels across the country merely encouraged them to spend even more money on upgrade packages. A partially redacted transcript of Trump's deposition shows the Republican defending his so-called school's business practices, and addressing his previous endorsements of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. Cohn filed the transcript June 3 as part of a lengthy exhibit list in opposition to Trump's motion for summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said June 9, that Cohn also lodged videos "non-electronically" as exhibits, but that these filings failed to comply court procedures. Section 2.k. of the Court's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual says parties must "seek leave of the court to allow the non-electronic filing of exhibits when they are not convertible to electronic form." "Parties have complied with this rule on previous occasions in this and the related case Low v. Trump University LLC when they have sought to non-electronically file video exhibits," Curiel wrote. The videos thus cannot be filed as exhibits and must instead be returned to Cohn, according to the ruling. Cohen may seek to refile the video exhibits later, but must comply with the court rule regarding the filing of video exhibits, Curiel wrote. The case captioned, ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.). * * * Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that while barrels of ink have been spilled over Donald Trump's racially-tinged attack on a federal judge, little air time and newspaper print has been devoted to the legal underpinning of the two cases against Trump University now moving through federal court in San Diego. The first question raised by the two cases is why there are two, and not one, since both cases are class actions naming the likely Republican presidential candidate as principal defendant. University of California, San Diego Law Professor Sean Martin said there is time to consolidate both cases should either of those classes desire to do so, but slight differences in the plaintiffs and the claims have caused the bifurcation. The first case, Low v. Trump, is a class action suit involving Trump University students in three states, New York, California and Florida. Whereas the second case, Cohen v. Trump, filed three years after, involves a much larger, nationwide class and a more complex set of claims that include racketeering. The older Low case centers on rather traditional claims of false advertising -- although it also includes elder abuse claims that contain more legal elements -- while the newer Cohen case claims Trump University violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Low case is expected to be the first to come to trial. It is also the simpler, more straightforward of the two, said law professor Martin. Essentially, the plaintiffs are claiming customers made purchases based on one of the three following assertions made by Trump University, which turned out to be deceptive. The first claim relates to the use of the word "university" in the title Trump University. The claim is that use of that designation led reasonable consumers to believe Trump University was an institution of higher education with professors, degrees, accreditation etc. when in fact Trump University possessed none of those things and instead consisted of three-day real estate seminars in various hotel rooms. The second claim of false advertising centers on the university's promise that its classes would be taught by experts hand-selected by Donald Trump himself. The plaintiffs claim the teachers often had zero or very little experience in real estate and were not qualified experts. Trump admits he had little involvement in the selection of any of the instructors or mentors beyond glancing at resumes, according to depositions conducted by Jason Forge, lead plaintiff attorney in the Cohen case, recorded in two sessions around the holidays. "I would see some resumes, but I told him, you know, I want very good people," Trump said during the deposition. In the same series of depositions, the former president of Trump University, Michael Sexton, contradicts that assertion, saying Trump had practically no involvement in the selection of any of the organization's personnel. The final claim in the Low case relates to Trump University mentors, which the university claimed would assist attendees who purchased a $35,000 upgrade, for at least a year. The mentors often had zero interaction with students beyond the initial three- day seminar, the plaintiffs claim in the suit. While Martin said the atmospherics of the case are bad -- encouraging people to pay $1,500 to attend a three-day seminar at which attendees are pressured to spend an additional $35,000 -- the law professor said the case if far from a slam dunk. "The facts are not at what is at issue here, what is at issue is whether a reasonable person might rely upon these assertions to make a decision to purchase the product," said the professor. In other words, Trump and his attorneys are not refuting the facts put forward by the plaintiffs, they are merely saying those facts do not rise to the level of fraud or false advertising. The defendants, including Trump, say the statements don't constitute false advertising, but instead represent the standard manner in which consumers are treated in the business environmnent of the United States. They argue that calling the operation a university, calling the instructors and mentors experts, and indicating Trump had personal involvement in the selection "are classic examples of sales puffery common to advertising everywhere." With that main argument Trump and his attorneys sought summary judgment, a motion that was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel last November, setting the stage for a trial -- currently slated to begin just after the presidential election on Nov. 28 of this year. "The judge decided these questions of fact must be decided by a jury," Martin said. Meanwhile, it is the other case, Cohen v. Trump that has grabbed headlines recently, despite being still in preliminary stages and the and farther out from trial. The Cohen case is also before Judge Curiel. The recent media blitz began after the Washington Post filed a request for the release of documents, depositions and other court materials related to the case. The documents were unsealed by order of Curiel, who ruled in late May on a motion to intervene in the Cohen case brought by the Washington Post. The Post said that given the prominence of the case, and Trump's status as de facto Republican nominee for president, the documents should be released. When Curiel allowed the documents to be released, Trump began to attack his Mexican heritage, saying the judge was biased against Trump because the presumptive nominee has campaigned on a plank of building a large wall between the United States and Mexico. Aside from the extracurricular comments made by the presidential nominee, the Cohen case differs from the Low case because of the higher burden of proof on the plaintiffs associated with brining a RICO case. Thus, rather than a simple false advertising case, its allegations are that Trump University engaged in a sustained pattern of corrupt practices. "RICO cases are more complicated and more difficult to prove," Martin said. "Rather than saying it was a simple case of false advertising, they must prove Trump University was a corrupt organization engaged in a pattern of fraud, where they knew what they were saying was false, but they did it anyway." The stakes are also higher in a civil RICO case, as the plaintiffs are entitled to triple damages and triple attorney's fees as well. The Cohen Case, which aside from the burden of proof, hinges on the similar claims of fraudulence related to the use of the word university, whether instructors were qualified and/or were picked by Trump himself and whether the mentors provided the advertised services. The case survived a motion to dismiss, and a final pretrial conference is slated for August 28 in San Diego. "There is some pretty bad atmospheric stuff for Trump," Martin said. "The people he hired were generally just salesmen pressuring people to buy these things." However, Martin says in terms of the core allegations that both cases hang on, there is nothing that Trump University or Trump himself said that goes beyond the common exagerrations and overstatement used to sell goods to individuals, referred to in the law as "puffery." "In a rational world, they would have settled this case," he said. "Both sides have a reasonable position." However, Trump is unorthodox in the business world in that he prefers not to settle, instead fighting complaints all the way through trial. Based on the facts that have emerged so far, Trump carries the heavier load, at least on the simpler false advertising claims in the Low case, said the UCSD law professor. He concluded, "I'd rather be on the plaintiff side." TRUSTMARK CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group. The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues. All parties have completed and filed briefing on the class certification issues. In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards. On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for aiding, abetting, and participating in (i) violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC. The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss the SAC. UBER & LYFT: Face Class Suit Over Mass Layoffs in Texas ------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Uber and Lyft, which pulled out of Austin, Texas, two days after voters refused to repeal fingerprint-based security checks, face federal class actions accusing them of making illegal mass layoffs without notice. Austin voters on May 7 roundly rejected an Uber- and Lyft-financed proposition that would have repealed a city law requiring driving history and criminal background checks on drivers. The next day, both companies announced they would stop work in Austin, and both did so the day after that. "Contact your City Council member now to tell them you want Lyft back," Lyft said in a mass message to its customers. Days before the election, a federal class action accused Uber of illegally spamming cellphones, urging people to vote for Proposition 1, which lost, 44 to 56 percent. The companies' political action committee, Ridesharing Works for Austin, spent $10 million on the election, according to the Austin Chronicle. On June 9, former drivers sued against both companies, claiming they violated the WARN Act. The Worker Adjustment or Retraining Notification Act requires employers with more than 100 employees to give employees 60 days notice before mass layoffs. Lead plaintiffs Todd Johnston for Uber and David Thorton for Lyft say the companies still have not "provided any form of WARN Act notice to its Austin drivers." The virtually identical complaints say the companies must provide 60 days worth of back pay to the plaintiffs and other drivers. Both lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, say the Northern District of California is an appropriate venue due to similar lawsuits pending there. Nor are the plaintiffs happy that Uber and Lyft spent what they estimate as $8 million on a PAC that attacked Democratic City Council members who opposed Proposition 1. "Uber gave significant amounts of money went to politically conservative right-wing PACs and individuals described as 'experienced Republican operatives' in efforts to both defeat the ordinance and to personally ridicule and politically attack Austin City Council members in support of the ordinance," Johnston's complaint says, in identical language, except for the name of the company, to Thorston's complaint. They accuse the companies of targeting Democrat Ann Kitchen in particular, creating an app with a horse and buggy image and naming it after her to ridicule her. "The result is that thousands of Austin Uber and Lyft drivers have lost their jobs and incomes," the drivers say. They seek class certification, declaratory judgment that the companies violated the WARN Act, an injunction, 60 days lost wages and benefits, statutory damages and penalties. Plaintiffs in both cases are represented by Thomas Brandi, of San Francisco, and Michael Slack, of Bee Cave, Texas. Uber and Lyft did not respond to emailed requests for comment sent after business hours June 9. Both companies face rafts of lawsuits accusing them of a welter of labor law violations and other infractions -- Uber 592 lawsuits and Lyft 99, in the Courthouse News database. * * * Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that Todd Johnston drove for Uber. David Thornton drove for Lyft. Austin's Slack & Davis represents both men and, if the law firm's proposed class actions succeeds, it hopes plenty of others who once drove in Austin, Texas for the ride-hailing companies. In twin law suits filed in the San Francisco-based U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 9, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thornton, and their Slack & Davis lawyers have crafted a novel approach to pursue Uber and Lyft. The two lawsuits each allege that Uber and Lyft violated the Worker Adjustment, Retraining and Notification Act, (WARN) when the companies fled Austin in May and failed to give their drivers 60 days' advance notice as required of employers shuttering operations. Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Lyft spokeswoman declined to comment for the record. In other litigation each of the companies have argued their drivers are independent contractors and not employees. In May, following Austin voters' decision to keep city regulations requiring ride-hailing drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks, Uber and Lyft followed through on their promised plans to leave town. In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege the companies are liable for up to 60 days of their back pay, as well as back pay for proposed class members. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NY Taxi Alliance Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Bigu Haider, Vijay Shanti, Harjit Khatra, Inderjeet Parmar, Diogenes Carrasco, Timothy Cavaretta, Mamadou Diallo, Jallow Cherno, Ranjit Kaler, Jakir Hossain, Individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated and as class representatives, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Logistik, LLC, Uber USA LLC, Acht-NY, LLC, Achtzehn-NY, LLC, Garret Camp, Andrew Chapin, Danach-NY, LLC, Dreist-NY, LLC, Dreizehn-NY, LLC, Drinnen-NY, LLC, Eins-NY, LLC, Elf-NY, LLC, Einundzwanzig-NY, LLC, Funf-NY, LLC, Funfzehn-NY LLC, Grun, LLC, J. William Gurley, Hinter, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Josh Mohrer, Neun-NY, LLC, Neunzehn-NY, LLC, Schmecken, LLC, Sechs-NY, LLC, Sieben-NY, LLC, Siebzehn-NY, LLC, Unter, LLC, Vier-NY, LLC, Vierzehn-NY, LLC, Weiter, LLC, Zehn-NY, Zwanzig-NY LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04098 (S.D. N.Y., June 2, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated and nominal damages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws, as well as damages resulting from breach of contract. Plaintiffs are Uber drivers whose vehicles were contracted by Uber for its clients. They all claim that their vehicles were subject to downgrades that rendered them unqualified for Uber's service, a decision that was done unilaterally without their consent. They also claim that their hours rendered are in excess of 40 per workweek but were denied overtime pay as drivers. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanne Ellen Mirer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEANNE E. MIRER, PLLC 1700 Broadway, 21st Fl. New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 231-2235 Facsimile: (212) 765-8954 Email: jeanne@jmirerlaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shaver" Suit in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. The case is captioned Amanda Shaver, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff. v., Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22067-UU (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Ursula Ungaro. 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. Uber serves customers worldwide and is based in San Francisco California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Healy (940410) DUDLEY, SELLERS & HEALY, PL 3522 Thomasville Rd., Suite 301 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 222-5400 Facsimile: (850) 222-7339 E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Attorney to Reduce Fee Request ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that stung by accusations that she sold out hundreds of thousands of Uber drivers to enrich herself, plaintiffs attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said on June 10 that she would reduce her fee request in the high-profile class action by $10 million. Ms. Liss-Riordan, who is based in Boston, is lead plaintiffs counsel in litigation against Uber Technologies Inc. over its classification of drivers as independent contractors. In April, she struck an $84 million settlement with the company, which could surge to $100 million if the company hits certain financial milestones. Ms. Liss-Riordan indicated at the time that her team would seek fees of $21 million at the lower threshold and $25 million at the higher one. In a filing in federal court on June 10, Ms. Liss-Riordan, who has been under pressure from drivers, plaintiffs lawyers and even one of her former clients, said she would take a $10 million pay cut "in order to provide additional benefit to the class." She emphasized that the original deal allotted legal fees in keeping with the 25 percent "benchmark" that California courts have said is acceptable in class action recoveries. In an email, Ms. Liss-Riordan also said she is calling on Uber to increase its contribution to the base settlement value by $10 million, meaning that the roughly 350,000 California and Massachusetts drivers subject to the settlement would be able to draw on an additional $20 million in total. An Uber spokesman declined to comment when asked whether the company would accede to that request. "I am offended by the allegations that I settled the case for the fees," Ms. Liss-Riordan said in the email. "As an experienced and dedicated workers rights advocate for nearly 20 years, I reached an agreement that I believe is in the best interests of the class." If U.S. District Judge Edward Chen approves the settlement and Ms. Liss-Riordan's fee request, her team would now collect $11 million, or $15 million if the company's valuation grows 1.5 times through an acquisition or an IPO. The move by Ms. Liss-Riordan comes about a week after a contentious hearing on preliminary approval of the proposed settlement before the Northern District of California judge. Chen appeared likely to reject the deal over concerns that it would extinguish a broad range of litigation pending against Uber and make it harder for some drivers to sue the company on their own. The settlement does not resolve the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors. Uber maintains they will continue to be treated as the latter, and thus not be entitled to reimbursement for expenses like gas or mobile phone data. Ms. Liss-Riordan has faced calls from a handful of other plaintiffs attorneys to be removed as class counsel. They charge that she settled the case too cheaply and deprived the roughly 350,000 Uber drivers subject to the settlement of the financial compensation to which they're entitled. Ms. Liss-Riordan estimated that if she were successful in the three California and Massachusetts cases she was pursuing against Uber, drivers could have recovered more than $850 million. However, she emphasized that figure is based on a series of best-case-scenario predictions and doesn't account for the risks involved in taking the case to trial. UNITED STATES: DHS Settlement to Benefit Autistic Pa. Children -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Miller, writing for Pennlive, reports that more than 40,000 Pennsylvania children with autism could benefit from a just- approved settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit against the state Department of Human Services. The accord, approved by U.S. Middle District Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, requires the state, among other things, to step up its program for aiding those children. The settlement ends a two-year legal fight the Philadelphia-based Disability Rights Network of PA waged with the department. Terms of the deal require the state to establish a separate designation for autism spectrum disorder in its Behavioral Health Rehabilitation Services system. The department must increase the availability of applied behavioral analysis therapy, which the rights network contends has proven effective for children with ASD. New "medical necessity" guidelines must be issued by the state to ensure proper treatment of ASD clients. The department must set regulations for training, experience and supervision of practitioners of applied behavioral analysis therapy. The rights network initially filed the suit in 2014 on behalf of three children with ASD claiming the state's programs for those children were inadequate and lacked staff of the required expertise. Months of negotiation followed, during which Carlson certified the suit as a class action. The settlement also requires the state to pay the rights network $170,000 for its costs in pursuing the case. VCA INC: Payments to Class Members to be Disbursed in Late June --------------------------------------------------------------- VCA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that payments to class members will be disbursed in late June or early July. On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided courier services with respect to our laboratory clients in California filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit, is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier services in California. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, among other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have an agreement in principle to settle the action, on a class-wide basis, for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, has agreed to pay half of the claim. Accordingly, as of March 31, 2016, we have accrued the remaining fifty percent. The proposed settlement, when and if it becomes effective, would not be an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by any of the defendants named in the complaint. Antech Diagnostics and Logistics Delivery Solutions have agreed upon the terms of this proposed settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 30, 2015, subject to court approval and class notice administration before it will be effective. On March 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. On April 11, 2016, the Court entered the Judgment approving the settlement. The judgment will go into effect on June 1, 2016. Payments to class members will be disbursed in late June or early July. VCA INC: Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification Due ---------------------------------------------------------- VCA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Defendants' Opposition to the class certification was due in May 2016. The Company said, "On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for "biohazard waste management" in connection with the services performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs." "VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the Southern District of California. The parties have engaged in extensive discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 12, 2016. The Defendants' Opposition to the class certification was due in May 2016. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole." VINCENT CARR: Certification of Class Sought in "Saunders" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Saunders asks the Court that the case titled ROBERT SAUNDERS v. DR. VINCENT CARR, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01184-GMS (D. Del.), be maintained as a class action. The Plaintiff contends that the the issue of class certification has a direct bearing on issue raised in the complaint. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=leWOnKn7 VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Lenart" Suit in N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Visionworks of America, Inc. The case is captioned Cheryl Lenart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Visionworks of America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05935 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly. Vsionworks (formerly Eye Care Centers of America) is an American company which operates or manages 700 optical retail stores in 40 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419 1008 Facsimile: (312) 419 1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com WALT DISNEY: Seeks Appellate Review in No Poach Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the studios make a big bid to pause a legal fight to get clarity on an issue that could impact the certifications of class actions. If The Walt Disney Company and DreamWorks Animation get their way in a new move made on June 9, workers who have been denied better job opportunities because of long-ago collusive behavior could find it more difficult to organize a class action antitrust lawsuit. The companies as well as their subsidiaries are presently facing legal action over agreements made with each other not to poach workers in the animation industry. These pacts were six years ago the subject of a Justice Department investigation, a settlement with the government and many follow-up civil lawsuits. In late May, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed to certify a class action (with some caveats) over antitrust claims between 2004 and 2010 with the potential for a trial where Disney and DreamWorks could face damages in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. After all, Sony Pictures recently agreed to a proposed $13 million settlement while Fox's Blue Sky Studios agreed to a $5.9 million deal to resolve claims. Now, the studios with skin left in the game have asked for permission for an interlocutory appeal, meaning one that would be heard before the 9th Circuit before the case ever gets to trial. And in a further sign of the high stakes, the appellate team is being led by Gibson Dunn heavyweight Ted Boutrous. It's a bedrock principle that the statute of limitations on federal antitrust claims is four years, but plaintiffs who are stymied by fraudulent concealment may sue past this time upon discovery of the wrongs. The difficulty arises in figuring out on how to square this when plaintiffs are suing as a collective. As appellants' petition puts it, "This closely watched case raises an important question on a recurring issue impacting a wide range of class actions: Under what circumstances is class certification appropriate where, as here, all class members' claims are time- barred unless they can establish tolling through fraudulent concealment?" In putative class actions, when a judge is presented with claims of an individualized nature, it's often reason to deny class certification. In this case brought on behalf of some 10,000 visual effects workers, Disney and DreamWorks say that "many class members here had actual knowledge of their claims years before this action was filed is no mere hypothetical, as the alleged conspiracy was openly discussed in an extraordinary record of meetings, blog posts, and emails." They point to two of the named plaintiffs as exemplar of the supposed knowledge. Robert Nitsch, a former visual effects worker who worked on Matrix Revolutions and Kung Fu Panda, received an email in 2008 entitled "collusion?" stating that "apparently, ilm [Industrial Light & Magic] and imd [ImageMovers Digital] have an agreement they will inform each other when they are interviewing each other's employees. how illegal is this?" And David Wentworth, who worked on Hellboy and Enchanted, read an old Facebook post during his deposition where another visual effects worker recounted an all-hands meeting at ImageMovers Digital where an all-hands meeting at the company was recounted with someone there acknowledging a no-poaching agreement. The poster wrote being "slightly shocked to hear this admitted to so publicly," and Wentworth commented, "I remember thinking the same thing." In certifying the class, Judge Koh waived off such evidence that plaintiffs knew of potential claims many years before they sued, writing in her opinion that "the number of class members for whom Defendants identify such evidence is small" and that "the relatively small number of individual inquiries which might be required do not defeat predominance." Disney and DreamWorks may still use a statute of limitations defense, but the judge wouldn't let it stop class certification. Instead, the issue of whether antitrust claims are time-barred is set to be tested at trial in some fashion, perhaps a proceeding where plaintiffs must first show their claims are ripe by proving fraudulent concealment of the anti-poaching pacts on the part of the studios. But that's not good enough for the defendants who now aim to pause the litigation to get appellate review on whether certification is permissible here. The appellate brief presents the issue as an important, unsettled issue of law. WINSTON-SALEM, NC: Kernersville Residents Sue Over Sewer Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Faith Abubey, writing for WFMY, reports that two Kernersville residents have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and residents who paid for sewer services through the Winston-Salem-Forsyth County City/County Utility Commission (CCUC) any time on and after January 1, 2013. The lawsuit claims the utilities commission and the town of Kernersville unlawfully overcharged customers by about $5 million during that time period. The 13-page lawsuit explains the town and the utility commission reached an agreement back in the 1990s that the commission would provide sewer services to Kernersville residents at a 3.439 times the rate Winston-Salem residents were paying and would drop annually. In 2003, that rate was frozen at 2.487. The difference between the amounts charged Winston-Salem residents would be used to develop a savings account called a Rate Differential Fund (RDF), for future expansion and maintenance projects. In 2011, the lawsuit alleges, the parties involved entered a new agreement that would allow the rate to drop to 1.2 times the rate in Winston Salem by 2013 barring any new changes -- which must be in writing by a deadline of June 30th, 2012. That deadline was extended to December of 2012, in writing. The plaintiffs say when that deadline passed, there was no written agreement which meant the rate was supposed to drop to 1.2 but that never happened. Instead, the governing bodies dropped the rate to 1.6 in 2015 under a verbal agreement. Because no new agreement was ever put in writing, the plaintiffs say, it amounts to about 8,000 individuals being overcharged for sewer services in the last three years. Town manager Curtis Swisher says the rate never dropped to 1.2 because the parties involved in the negotiations extended the deadline, verbally, until they reach an agreement -- whenever that might be. Mr. Swisher says those negotiations are still on-going three years later and they should be completed by this summer. "When we extended that and continued negotiations, we verbally agreed to do that but we didn't get it in writing. All three of the parties did not agree to it and sign it in writing that way. We verbally agreed but we didn't do it in writing," Mr. Swisher explained. The plaintiffs declined an interview but homeowner Marilyn Kearns told 2 Wants 2 Know she can't believe town leaders and commissioners could be so careless. "How do you have two governments who don't have the sense to put something in writing?" she asked rhetorically. Mr. Swisher says looking back, it's something they probably should have done. "I don't know that it was a mistake, I would not say it was necessarily a mistake. I guess in the original addendum, it said that any changes we had had to be done in writing, based on that, we did make a mistake in not getting it done in writing. However, everybody agreed to it," Mr. Swisher said. He went on to say all parties were negotiating in good faith on behalf of the CCUC customers and the plaintiffs should understand no one wins even if a judge rules in their favor because the sewer lines cost money to keep up. "For the citizens, if they win the lawsuit, they'll get money back. Basically, if they choose to be part of the class action, they would get money back but it's very likely that it would cost them that much or more at some point in the future," he said. The town manager explains the sewer system needs $80 million in projects through 2045 and there's nowhere near that amount in the maintenance account. That means, someone will have to pay either in higher taxes or with the sewer rates going up so the town would have money for maintenance and future sewer projects. "I hate to say it. It looks like a no-win situation," another homeowners, Allen Hicks said. In response to the lawsuit, the CCUC chair David Neill sent 2 Wants 2 Know this statement: "The monies held in the Kernersville Rate Differential Fund were generated by the adoption of a rate multiplier requested by the Town of Kernersville to be charged to customers within the Town limits. The monies generated by this multiplier can only be used at the request of the Town for water and sewer expansion projects sponsored by the Town. The Commission is only the administrator of the Fund, on behalf of the Town. Any questions concerning how or why the funds have been accumulated will be forwarded to the Town of Kernersville. In light of such, it is anticipated that the Town of Kernersville will provide for the legal defense of the Commission. The Town Board will vote on such in short order." WOOD GROUP: McLemore Seeks Conditional Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOHN MCLEMORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP PSN INC., HESS CORPORATION, AND PHOENIX SAFETY & LOGISTICS PERSONNEL, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-01267 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to grant his motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to issue opt-in notices and consent forms to: "all current and former workers who were putatively employed by Phoenix, but assigned to Hess, during the three-year period preceding the filing of this complaint who were paid a "day rate" with no overtime, and thus did not received overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half their regular rate when they worked more than forty hours in a workweek." Mr. McLemore alleges that Phoenix paid him and his similarly situated coworkers a full or partial "day rate" based on the number of days and hours they worked, with no overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ru77Ghok The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Oberti, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 723 Main Street, Suite 340 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 401-3555 Facsimile: (713) 401-3547 E-mail: mark@osattorneys.com YELP INC: Plaintiffs' Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remains pending. In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain of its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company's favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. YELP INC: $1.1 Million Released to Fund Settlement et al. --------------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that $1.1 million has been released to the Company from the escrow fund established in connection with the acquisition of Eat24, to fund settlement amounts and related legal expenses. On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately $0.6 million. Once finalized, the settlement will be subject to court approval. On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately $0.2 million. Once finalized, the settlement will be subject to court approval. Based on the preliminary settlement agreements reached in connection with the two lawsuits by former Eat24 employees, the Company recognized a liability for each of the proposed settlement amounts as part of its accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2016. In February 2016, $1.1 million was released to the Company from the escrow fund established in connection with the acquisition of Eat24, to fund such settlement amounts and related legal expenses. ZYNGA INC: Court Has Yet to Enter Schedule in "Lee" Case -------------------------------------------------------- Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that that the Delaware Chancery Court has not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in the case, Lee v. Pincus et al. On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as defendants. On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is complete. A hearing date has not been set. On August 19, 2015 the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director defendants from the case. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015, and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court has not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in this action. Zynga Inc. is a provider of social game services. * South Africa's Coal Miners Face Silicosis Litigation Threat ------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Seccombe, writing for BDlive, reports that SA's coal miners could be the next to face a wave of litigation from workers with lung diseases, after successes against gold companies by workers who contracted silicosis. The warning came from Stuart McCafferty, a partner at law firm Webber Wentzel, who said the class action brought against gold- mining companies was "the start of a perfect storm" facing mining companies. "What may have been considered as inconceivable six or 10 years ago now looms as a very real threat, and that is the specter of litigation against coal mining companies by their employees and former employees who suffer from respiratory disease, as a result of exposure to dust." Recent developments leading to this conclusion included judgments that ruled that mine owners had no statutory protection from common law claims from employees, and a developing class action jurisprudence, or the principles of law. There were also third-party funding of these claims, the combination of local and foreign law firms, which had experience in pursuing these claims, and the experience gained in successful domestic legal suits in asbestosis and silicosis matters that was now being rolled out into other sectors, Mr. McCafferty said. Six gold firms have applied for leave to appeal against the silicosis class action judgment, which paved the way for 17,000- 500,000 miners potentially to be paid billions of rand. Coal miners may contract pneumoconiosis, known as black lung disease, an incurable sickness. According to the Chamber of Mines' 2015 annual report, there were 125 cases of pneumoconiosis reported in 2013 and 94 a year later. The coal mines employ about 87,000 people. Sasol, a miner of coal that it converts into liquid fuels, said it was dealing with a civil suit brought by Richard Spoor against it on behalf of 22 people. They are seeking damages for R80m. "The plaintiffs did not apply to have the claims certified as class action," Sasol said. "Sasol is not aware of any imminent class action on behalf of mine workers in the coal mining industry. We would therefore, not like to speculate on the possibility of such an action being instituted," it said. Anglo American said it was actively lowering dust levels. "Anglo American Coal SA's response plan includes more rigorous data management, sampling and monitoring of control effectiveness, as well as research into step-change technologies that will enable consistently low dust levels," said spokesman Pranill Ramchander. Asked about the Webber Wentzel warning, he said: "Anglo American is not aware of any class application in relation to coal and cannot speculate on the prospect of such actions being brought, or the potential merits of such claims." Glencore declined to comment on any potential legal action. "We undertake a wide range of occupational healthcare programs, mostly tailored to fit the specific circumstances of each operation," spokeswoman Shamiela Letsoalo said. * Section 245 Provision to Impact India's Company Law Regime ------------------------------------------------------------ Shreeja Sen, writing for livemint, reports that the government notified several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, bringing them into effect. Among them were sections regarding the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), protecting employees during investigations and imposing restrictions on the transfer of securities while an investigation was pending regarding it. Yet another provision was Section 245, which relates to class action suits in cases of mismanagement of a company by its directors. Class action suits are not new in India. But this section is a first of its kind under company law. Here's a look at how the class action suit would change the company law regime. What are class action suits under company law? If 100 shareholders (in case of company with share capital), or 10% of the holding interest, or depositors find that the company's affairs are not being managed in its best interests, after this notification, they can collectively approach the NCLT for redressing the situation. This is what the new provisions on class action suit would allow. Under the 2013 Act, shareholders also have the option to not bring a collective case, or a class action suit. For this also, at least 100 shareholders will be required. Why have a separate provision for class action, then? A major change is the option of getting monetary compensation or damages owing to the fraudulent actions of a company. "The injunctive reliefs could be overlapping but you have an entirely different option available to claim compensation, damages or any other suitable action for any fraudulent action of the company, its directors, auditors, advisers. The spread is much wider, the consequences are, insofar as the monetary compensation is concerned is today statutorily provided for," said Ritu Bhalla, senior litigation partner at law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, Delhi. The remedies available under the two are different. Sections 241- 244, which also seek to redress cases of oppression and management have a greater array of remedies. "The provisions of class action come under the head of oppression and mismanagement but there are some differences between the remedies sought under class action under Section 245 and under the general provisions of oppression and mismanagement under Section 242. While under Section 242 the NCLT can order acquisition of the company's shares, restrict transferability or allotment of shares, removal of managing director and other directors of the company, in class action, the orders will mainly be restraining orders," said Lalit Kumar, corporate partner at law firm J. Sagar Associates. These restraining orders could be in the nature of restraining a company from committing an act which is beyond the scope of the company's memorandum of association or articles of association, declaring a resolution altering the charter documents as void if such resolutions are passed upon suppression of material facts or through a misstatement, he added, by way of examples. An added advantage of the provisions on class action suit is that they cover depositors also. This was not a feature of the earlier law. "The earlier provisions don't cover depositors, the provisions of class action covers them. Everything else seems to be the same with the class actions even the threshold of 100 shareholders is the same," Ms. Kumar said. What was the need for class action suits in company cases? The option of class action suits for company law cases is a well established principle in foreign jurisdictions, especially the US. In India, the need for a change in law arose after the Satyam scam. According to Ms. Bhalla, while investors in the US successfully won damages worth thousands of crores of rupees, those in India were left high and dry. "Technically, yes, options were available, filing civil cases, pay huge stamp duties, file a representative action, get into the civil court, rigors of the civil jurisprudence or go to the consumer forum which had its own challenges of satisfying whether it was a contract of goods or services. There was no real viable option in India, unlike options available overseas, where this jurisprudence is not new, it's not rare, it's a common phenomenon," she said. This new provision will also bring more accountability, and the company and associated parties such as auditors and advisers, will have a greater liability to act responsibly. "In class action suit, you can sue the company, the directors, the auditors, the technical advisers of the company who were party to the fraud . . . They all now need to understand the implication of how the affairs of the company are going to be conducted and how they're going to be called upon in question. Interestingly, it says auditors including audit firms of the company are now equally liable. It's a quantum jump for the options available to the investor, it's a warning for the people running, controlling and advising the company," Ms. Bhalla added. The provision will enable representative action on behalf of similarly affected people, or for those who don't have the required numbers to file a case before the tribunal. "After the class action is filed, the NCLT issues a public notice about it. There could be more people joining in who may or may not have qualifying shares. After the initial opening of the doors, there's an option of others joining in and this being a representative action for others," Ms. Bhalla said. Are there enough checks and balances to avoid misuse of the provision? The qualifications required to file a class action suit, according to Ms. Bhalla, give an adequate safeguard against misuse of this provision. * Post-GFC Environment Sparks More Class Action in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that parties are increasingly turning to class actions for redress of corporate misconduct in the post-GFC environment, a Squire Patton Boggs partner has said. Litigator Amanda Banton was the only lawyer in Australia to have successfully acted against US rating agency Standard & Poor's as markets collapsed following the global financial crisis in 2007. Speaking to Lawyers Weekly about the growth of class actions in Australia, Ms. Banton suggested the post-GFC environment has propagated fertile ground for more class action litigation. "Since 2007 when the GFC hit, there have been a number of corporate collapses and more variation in financial reporting when compared to forecasts. That financial environment, perhaps, is one of the factors leading to more class actions," Ms. Banton said. "As time has gone on, especially in the [litigation] that I've been involved in that resulted from the GFC and the collapse of complex financial products, class actions are more widely recognized in Australia as a mechanism to address misleading conduct and corporate mis-selling," she said. Ms. Banton continues to represent a group of NSW local councils, which lost millions in failed investments of certain financial products in the ongoing action against the rating agency. In 2012 the Federal Court found Standard & Poor's had failed its duty of care to investors with the AAA rating of risky and "grotesquely complicated" synthetic derivatives known as constant proportion debt obligations (CPDOs). According to Ms. Banton, the post-GFC environment has also seen the emergence of a different kind of lead applicant. She points to Standard and Poor's as an example of the more prominent type of plaintiff to pursue class actions and predicts actions led by institutional investors will increase. "Originally class actions had lead applicants such as mum and dad investors. You will increasingly see big trusts and super funds involved. The market is well developed now. People are more willing to participate and that is so on the corporate side of Australia," Ms. Banton said. "Depending on the particular corporate conduct [applicants] may well be people with high levels of sophistication. Traditionally in the class actions, some of those institutional investors would have sat behind the others but now they are more interested in coming forward where there has been corporate misconduct and be the lead applicant themselves. And I think that will increase," she said. Ms. Banton's practice, which focuses largely on financial products, works mainly for larger investors. The firm's class action litigation practice was spurred by the crash of financial markets after the GFC, with Australian investors incurring losses of billions of dollars. "In 2007 all the financial products, be they CDOs, RBMDs or other complex derivative type products crashed with the financial markets because there were a number of defaults. Investors sustained significant losses and in some cases lost all their capital. "The class actions that I've been involved in have been in relation to those financial products. Those claims are against the issuers, raters and the arrangers. We still have ongoing litigation with about nine cases in that space," Ms. Banton said. However, increased activity in the class actions space should not be viewed with alarm, Ms. Banton added. "When you look at it from the perspective of the funders, they are not in the business of losing money and so unlikely to be funding any claims that in their view don't have merit. I don't think there's any scare about the number of class actions -- I think most are valid and reasonable actions." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motors Faces 1,620 Cases at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ There were approximately 1,620 asbestos cases outstanding against Standard Motor Products, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At March 31, 2016, approximately 1,620 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2016, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $19.2 million. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. "The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2015. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $33.3 million to $51.1 million for the period through 2058. The change from the prior year study was a $2.8 million decrease for the low end of the range and a $4.3 million decrease for the high end of the range. The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months, our historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2015 actuarial study, a favorable adjustment to the asbestos liability was not recorded in our consolidated financial statements as the difference between our recorded liability and the liability in the actuarial report at the low end of the range was not material. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in loss from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range from $40 million to $75.5 million for the period through 2058. "We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Involved in 3 Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------- Haynes International is involved in three asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "The Company is regularly involved in litigation, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant, relating to its business and operations, including environmental, commercial, employment and federal and/or state Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administrative actions. Future expenditures for environmental, employment, intellectual property and other legal matters cannot be determined with any degree of certainty; however, based on the facts presently known, management does not believe that such costs will have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "The Company is currently, and has in the past been, subject to claims involving personal injuries allegedly relating to its products and processes. For example, the Company is presently involved in two actions involving welding rod-related injuries, which were filed in California state court against numerous manufacturers, including the Company, in May 2006 and February 2007, respectively, alleging that the welding-related products of the defendant manufacturers harmed the users of such products through the inhalation of welding fumes containing manganese. The Company is also involved in three actions related to asbestos in its facilities, which were filed in 2012 and 2014. The Company believes that it has defenses to these lawsuits and that, if the Company were to be found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Defending Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for eight separate causes of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and $5.0 million for the sixth cause of action and punitive damages in the amount for $10.0 million for five causes of action. In the seventh case the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount $10.0 million, for five separate causes of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. "We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos- related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Faced 36K Asbestos Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- There were 36 thousand pending claims against ITT Corporation and its subsidiary, Goulds Pumps, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc. (Goulds Pumps), has been sued, along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. As of March 31, 2016, there were 36 thousand pending claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Activity related to these asserted asbestos claims during the period was as follows: For the Three Months Ended March 31 (in thousands) 2016 -------------------- ---- Pending claims -- Beginning 37 New claims 1 Dismissals (2) Pending claims -- Ending 36 "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating those costs at this time. "The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect management's best estimate of future events. However, future events affecting the key factors and other variables for either the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is difficult to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future events affecting the key factors and other variables within the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. Income Statement Charges "As part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, each quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitative data available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing the data to expectations on which the most recent annual liability and asset estimates were calculated. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 other than the incremental accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. A net asbestos charge of $15.4 was recognized in both the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, to maintain the 10-year forecast period. Additionally during the first quarter of 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with an insurer to settle responsibility for multiple insurance claims, resulting in a benefit of $2.6. Changes in Financial Position "The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $639.3 and $630.8 as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The following table provides a rollforward of the estimated asbestos liability and related assets for the three months ended March 31, 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/XrjDx5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "The Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos. To date, the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Corporation believes its minimal use of asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Corporation maintains insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." ASBESTOS UPDATE: HWC Continues to Defend Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "The Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faced 258 Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. was a defendant in approximately 258 lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that contained asbestos. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court- appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. After ten years of litigation, this group of cases has been winnowed to the point where now only 15 plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending in Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest. During the year ended December 31, 2014, a group of lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were filed in Louisiana. As of March 31, 2016, eight plaintiffs have claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four different lawsuits filed in Louisiana. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of March 31, 2016, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 258 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 280 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through March 31, 2016, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. "Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Accrues $1.4MM at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Steel Partners Holdings L.P. said a unit has accrued $1,422,000 relating to the open and active claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,356 and 1,348 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through March 31, 2016. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,235 and 1,191 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3,000. There remained 121 and 157 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. "BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of $183,000,000 with $1,543,000 at March 31, 2016 and $1,543,000 at December 31, 2015 in estimated remaining self- insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic- tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. "BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, BNS Sub has accrued $1,422,000 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date relating to existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Had Less Than 220 Claims Pending at Mar 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ There were fewer than 220 asbestos-related claims pending against Univar, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "In the ordinary course of business the Company is subject to pending or threatened claims, lawsuits, regulatory matters and administrative proceedings from time to time. Where appropriate the Company has recorded provisions in the consolidated financial statements for these matters. The liabilities for injuries to persons or property are in some instances covered by liability insurance, subject to various deductibles and self-insured retentions. "The Company is not aware of any claims, lawsuits, regulatory matters or administrative proceedings, pending or threatened, that are likely to have a material effect on its overall financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any claims or litigation or the potential for future claims or litigation. "The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar USA's obligation to indemnify McKesson for settlements and judgments arising from asbestos claims is the amount which is in excess of applicable insurance coverage, if any, which may be available under McKesson's historical insurance coverage. Univar USA is also a defendant in a small number of asbestos claims. As of March 31, 2016, there were fewer than 220 asbestos-related claims for which the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation. Historically, the vast majority of the claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been dismissed without payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact earnings or cash flows in a particular future period." ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. The average cost per case to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, was immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Wins Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK, individually and as successor- in-interest to the Estate of MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER LINDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS COPRORATION, et al. Defendants, Case No. 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)(S.D. Calif.) On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs commenced this wrongful death and survival action in state court. On June 27, 2014, this action was removed to federal court. The Complaint alleges that Michael Walashek's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, in the course of performing his work for various employers from 1967 through 1986, caused him to suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death. The Complaint asserts claims of negligence and strict liability. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 24, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/Jbz7Nk from Leagle.com. Gail Elizabeth Walashek, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett, Esq. -- jbartlett@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, Lisa M Barley, Esq. -- lbarley@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Esq. -- spurdy@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Michelle Walashek, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Keith Walashek, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Laura Page, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Christopher Linden, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Shaun E. Swiger, Esq. -- Foley & Mansfield PLLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Charles Park, Esq. -- cpark@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker, LLP, David Blow, Esq. -- david.blow@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick, LLP, pro hac vice & Sara J. Savage, Esq. -- ssavage@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker, LLP. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Charles Jenkins, Esq. -- email@cwjlaw.com -- Law Offices of Charles W. Jenkins, APC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and Berkon LLP. J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Alice K Loh, Esq. -- aloh@behblaw.com -- Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum, Frederic W Norris, Esq. -- rick.norris@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Jennifer J. Lee, Esq. -- McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP & Reshma Bajaj, Esq. -- rbajaj@behblaw.com -- Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Justin E. Garratt, Tucker Ellis LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by John F. Hughes, Law Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP & Richard R Ames, Gordon & Rees LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael B. Giaquinto, Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Charles Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, Christina Maria Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP & Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker. General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Derek S. Johnson, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Dylan Daniel Rudolph, Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLP & Katherine Gardiner, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP. Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Steven K Hwang, Perkins Coie LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Respondent, is represented by Alex P. Catalona, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Constance R. Fraenkel, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Emily D Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer & Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Plant Products & Supply Co., Respondent, is represented by Carol Lee Healey, Bisohp Barry & Mary Margaret Ryan, Bishop Barry Drath. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Electric Liable for Failure to Warn ------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case captioned WILLIAM B. WEBB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. S209927 (Cal.), finding that substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict against Special Electric and the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff William Webb was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. He and his wife, Jacqueline Webb, sued multiple defendants under strict liability and negligence theories. They ultimately went to trial against Special Electric and two other companies. At the close of plaintiffs' case, Special Electric moved for nonsuit on the failure to warn claims. Special Electric argued, in part, that it had no duty to warn a sophisticated purchaser like Johns-Manville about the health risks of asbestos. The court deferred ruling pending further briefing. After both sides rested, Special Electric moved for a directed verdict on plaintiffs' strict liability claims. The court again deferred ruling. The jury returned a verdict finding Special Electric liable for failure to warn and negligence, but not liable for supplying a defectively designed product. It apportioned 49 percent of fault to Johns- Manville, 18 percent to Special Electric, and 33 percent to other entities. Before judgment was entered, Special Electric requested a ruling on its nonsuit and directed verdict motions. The court determined Special Electric was not liable for failure to warn and granted the motions. Concerned that these rulings might be procedurally irregular, the court also entered judgment on the jury verdict and construed the motions as seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). So characterized, the motions were granted and judgment was entered in favor of Special Electric. A divided panel of the Court of Appeal identified both procedural and substantive error. The majority determined the JNOV ruling was impermissibly premature and lacked the required written notice. It also concluded the entry of JNOV was improper because substantial evidence demonstrated that Special Electric breached a duty to warn Johns-Manville and foreseeable downstream users like Webb about the risks of asbestos exposure. The dissenting justice argued JNOV was proper because Special Electric was entitled to rely on Johns-Manville, a sophisticated purchaser, to warn downstream users about asbestos, and plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from procedural irregularities in the ruling. When a hazardous raw material is supplied for any purpose, including the manufacture of a finished product, the supplier has a duty to warn about the material's dangers. Under the sophisticated intermediary doctrine, the supplier can discharge this duty if it conveys adequate warnings to the material's purchaser, or sells to a sufficiently sophisticated purchaser, and reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey adequate warnings to others, including those who encounter the material in a finished product. Reasonable reliance depends on many circumstances, including the degree of risk posed by the material, the likelihood the purchaser will convey warnings, and the feasibility of directly warning end users. The doctrine balances the competing policies of compensating those injured by dangerous products and encouraging conduct that can feasibly be performed. The record does not establish as a matter of law that Special Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end users like William Webb about the dangers of asbestos. In addition, the jury could have reasonably determined that any reliance on Johns-Manville would have been unjustified. Plaintiffs presented testimony from a former Johns-Manville employee criticizing the company's handling of asbestos warnings and asserting it had failed to warn its own workers about the hazards of asbestos before the mid-1970s. A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 23, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/OtDjbC from Leagle.com. Paul & Hanley, Dean A. Hanley, Esq., Anthony E. Vieira, Esq.; Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier and Ted W. Pelletier. Esq. for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Esq. -- lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com, Curt Cutting, Esq. -- ccutting@horvitzlevy.com, Jason R. Litt, Esq. -- lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com; Brydon Hugo & Parker, Hugo Parker, Esq. -- hhugo@hugoparker.com, Edward R. Hugo, Esq. -- ehugo@hugoparker.com, James C. Parker, Esq. -- jparker@hugoparker.com, Jeffrey Kaufman, Esq. -- kaufmanlawinquiries@gmail.com -- Kaufman Law and Josette D. Johnson, Esq. for Defendant and Respondent. Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Mark A. Behrens, Esq. -- mbehrens@shb.com, Christopher E. Appel, Esq. -- cappel@shb.com and Patrick Gregory, Esq. -- pgregory@shb.com for Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, NFIB Small Business Legal Center and American Chemistry Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Deborah J. La Fetra, Esq. for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Armstrong & Associates and William H. Armstrong, Esq. -- bill.armstrong@armstrongetal.com for Elementis Chemicals Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Expert Disclosure Stricken -------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois orders the plaintiffs' expert disclosure stricken in the case styled WILLIAM D. BEGIN and GINNY BEGIN, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID CORPORATION, CRANE CO., WARREN PUMPS LLC, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, and GOULD PUMPS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-830-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.). As a discovery violation sanction and pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1), Plaintiffs are not allowed to use expert witnesses Dr. Arnold R. Brody, Dr. Barry I. Castleman, William Ewing, Dr. Arthur Frank, Dr. Edwin Holstein, Captain William A. Lowell, Dr. John C. Maddox, Dr. Eugene J. Mark, Dr. Gerald Markowitz, Dr. Steven Markowitz, Arnold P. Moore, or Dr. David Rosner to "supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial." This matter is before the Court on the Discovery Disputes brought to the Court's attention on April 29, 2016. Defendant Crane Co. objected to the expert disclosures filed by Plaintiffs on March 18, 2016 arguing that they failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). At the April 29, 2016 conference, Plaintiffs raised disputes as to Requests to Produce and Interrogatories served on October 7, 2015. In particular, Plaintiffs state that Defendant Crane Co. failed to produce Navy contracts that may be pertinent to their experts' opinions. In light of these disputes, this Court held an in person hearing on May 6, 2016 in which Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared by counsel. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 10, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/AaKOyM from Leagle.com. William D. Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley, Esq. -- lwhitley@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Esq. -- thulla@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC. Ginny Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley, Flint & Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Flint & Associates, LLC. Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Jessica Schmit, Esq. - - jschmit@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq. -- J.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Esq. -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al. & Undray Wilks, Esq. -- undray.wilks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE's Bid to Exclude Testimony in "Arbogast" OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted General Electric Company's motion to exclude certain opinions and testimony of Dr. Robert Leonard Vance as to the Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos being caused by GE products are properly excluded. In addition, the evidence before the Court fails to create a genuine dispute of material fact, and GE is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of Plaintiffs' claims against it in the case captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.). Further, the Court has considered GE's motion for summary judgment in conjunction with the motion in limine and has found it, too, has merit. Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., and Barbara Arbogast, sued twenty-seven defendants -- of whom fourteen remain in the case -- and alleged they, as manufacturers and/or distributors of various products, caused Charles Arbogast to be exposed to asbestos, which led to his diagnosis of mesothelioma. Following an earlier ruling, the complaint now contains three counts, including Count I -- strict liability, Count II -- negligence, and Count IV -- loss of consortium. Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages in excess of $75,000. Every allegation in the complaint is worded to apply to all of the Defendants and any of their products, operations, or processes; the allegations are not specific to any individual Defendant or to any specific product. Whether a particular Defendant's product or products contained asbestos and caused Arbogast to be exposed to asbestos is not detailed in the complaint; thus, in conjunction with any factual evidence, Dr. Vance's expert opinion is pivotal in the ultimate determination of whether a specific Defendant is responsible for exposing Arbogast to asbestos. GE has advanced two arguments to exclude Dr. Vance's opinions regarding asbestos exposure caused by GE wire and GE marine turbines: First, the opinions are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; and second, with respect to Dr. Vance's opinion regarding asbestos exposure from GE's marine turbines, his opinion was not included in his Rule 26 disclosures and should be excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. A careful review of the governing authorities and the materials in the record lead this Court to conclude GE's arguments are meritorious. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 18, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/JtrdNE from Leagle.com. Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by David M Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III, Esq. -- jguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC. Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, is represented by David M Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC. CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Clare Marie Maisano, Esq. -- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, Esq. -- nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group, LLC, David A Fusco, Esq. -- david.fusco@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, James B Insco, II, Esq. -- james.insco@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, Esq. -- michael.sechler@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E Birsic, Esq. -- thomas.birsic@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Michelle Noorani, Esq. -- mnoorani@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Warren N Weaver, Esq. -- wweaver@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, is represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., ., Esq. -- tradcliffe@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, is represented by F Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, is represented by Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M Elizabeth O Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Sepco Corporation, Defendant, is represented by F Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M Lee, Selman Breitman LLP, pro hac vice. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Goodrich Corporation, Movant, is represented by John C Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts" -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government in the case captioned ROGER BOTTS and CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-35007 (9th Cir.), and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in finding that Botts failed to produce evidence from which a finder of fact could reasonably conclude that asbestos exposure at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard resulting from violations of the Navy's mandatory rules after March 1970 was a substantial factor in causing Roger Botts' mesothelioma. The district court's view of the evidence was unduly restrictive in several ways. First, the district court found that the record did not establish the extent to which asbestos exposure at the Shipyard was due to violations of the Navy's asbestos containment regulations. However, evidence in the record shows that Navy personnel did not comply with the containment regulations after they came into effect in March 1970, and that, had the containment regulations been complied with, the volume and spread of asbestos fibers on ships due to just removal and cleanup activities would have been reduced by 90%. Second, the district court discounted Botts' Shipyard-wide asbestos exposure. However, there is evidence that asbestos- related work, including asbestos removal, installation, and fabrication, took place both on board ships and around the Shipyard while Botts made deliveries to the shipyard from 1970 to 1976. Under Washington law, expert "testimony that asbestos fibers have the ability to disperse over an entire shipyard is sufficient evidence from which it could be inferred that" an individual who worked at that shipyard during times that asbestos products were used "breathed the asbestos regardless of whether [the individual] worked on the ships or only in the shipyard." Here, Dr. Heyer so testified, and the United States has not challenged the validity or admissibility of his expert testimony. Third, the district court found that the time frame of exposure was only a one-month period from February to March of 1971. However, violations of the Navy's asbestos containment regulations began in March 1970, and there is evidence that, from 1970 to 1976, Botts spent as much as 20% of his working time each year at the Shipyard. There was expert testimony that working for less than a year in total in a shipyard during this time period could result in anywhere between a two- to eight-fold increase in the risk of developing mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 16, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/47WTiQ from Leagle.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Bid to Compel Discovery Partially OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Amtrak's motion to compel and denied in substantial part the Insurers' motions for a protective order in the case captioned CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS at LLOYD'S, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-4717 (FB). In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek, inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liability insurance policies, issued to defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") more than three decades ago, obligates plaintiff-insurers to reimburse Amtrak for costs incurred in connection with environmental waste allegedly found on Amtrak's property. Currently pending before the Court are certain aspects of Amtrak's motion to compel discovery, as well as a motion for a protective order filed by plaintiff-insurers concerning Amtrak's entitlement to production of reinsurance agreements under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"). The Court previously ruled on other portions of Amtrak's motion, as well as on a separate motion to compel by plaintiff-insurers. A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/tCJMpf from Leagle.com. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, Plaintiff, is represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Esq. -- aisha.bembry@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Esq. -- joseph.ruby@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Esq. -- mark.leimkuhler@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Esq. -- martin.baach@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Esq. -- ronald.abramson@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Co., Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company Of Winterthur, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 2 A/C), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 3 A/C), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Aegon NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. AG De 1830 Compagnie Belge D'Assurances Generales Incendie Accidents Et Risques Divers SA, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. American Home Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Amsterdan -- London Verzekeering Maatschappij NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Ancon Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Assicurazioni Generali SPA (UK Branch), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Bishopsgate Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Britamco Pool, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. CNA Reinsurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Cornhill Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Credit De Namur, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Delta-Lloyd Non-Life Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Delta-Lloyd Schadeverzekering NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Stronghold Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. The Dominion Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Northwestern National Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Europeesche Verzekering Maatschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Excess Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Helvetia-accident Swiss Insurance Company (As Part of Gibbon "E" Group), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Gresham Fire & Accident Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Gresham Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Harper Insurance Ltd F/k/a/Turegum Ins Co, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Instituto De Reasseguros Do Brasil (Irg) -- London Branch, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Interlloyd Verzekering Maastschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Koning & Boeke Van 1819, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. La Belgique, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. L'assicurazioni D'Italia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Le Assicurazioni D'Italia Spa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Les Assurances Generales De France, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Les Proprietaires Reunis S.A. D. Assurances I.A.R.D., Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. L'Etoile, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. London & Edinbugh General Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. London and Edinburgh General Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Maas Lloyd Nv Schadeverzekeringsmaatschappu, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Mercator Algemene Verzekerings Maatschappu Nv, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. N.V. Rotterdamse Assurantiekas, N.V. Verz Mij De Noodern, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Namur Assurances du Credit, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. National Casualty Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. National Casualty Company of America Limited, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Noorholland Brandw, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Norwich Union Fire Insuarnce Socity Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Providential Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Rheinland Versicherungs Ag, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Royal Belge Sa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Royal Nederland Schadeverzekering Nv, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Royale Belge Incendie Reassurances SA., Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. St Katherine Insurance Company PLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Terra Nova Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. The Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Wurttembergisch Feuerversicherrung AG, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company(UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Diligentia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC &Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. National RailRoad Passenger Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Rhonda D. Orin, Esq. -- rorin@andersonkill.com -- Anderson Kill & Olick LLP, Angela Singleton, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Daniel John Healy, Esq. -- dhealy@andersonkill.com -- Anderson Kill, LLP & Vivian Costandy Esq. -- vcostandy@andersonkill.com -- Michael, Anderson Kill. Allianz Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Esq. -- anthony.gambardella@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Esq. -- lawrence.levy@rivkin.com - - Rivkin Radler LLP, Michael A. Kotula, Esq. -- michael.kotula@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Esq. -- robert.maloney@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP. American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, rbryan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Esq. -- Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Esq. -- cquinlan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Esq. -- kvine@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. American Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., formerly known as American Reinsurance Company, Defendant, is represented by William Eugene Mcgrath Jr., Esq. -- wmcgrath@smithstratton.com -- Smith Stratton. Argonaut Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Brian Michael Reid, Esq. -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent J. Velardo, Esq. -- velardo@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, Defendant, represented by Ernesto Palomo, Locke Lord LLP, Jeffrey Steven Kramer, Locke Lord LLP, Joseph N. Froehlich, Locke Lord LLP & Robert A. Badgley, Karbal Cohen Economou Silk Dunne LLC. Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, Kathryn M. Frost, Elenius Frost & walsh,Arthur A. Povelones, Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto, P.A., George Richard Hardin, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto & William Patrick Lalor, Elenius Frost & Walsh. Evanston Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert P. Siegel, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Alison P. Baker, SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN LLP & Katherine Hance, Shipman & Goodwin LLP. Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented byRichard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. &Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Interstate Reinsurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. Landmark Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Northbrook Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. Wausau International Underwriters, Defendant, represented by Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S. Heres, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy, Jr., Zelle LLP. Yosemite Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark W. Zimmerman, Clausen Miller, Steven J. Fried, Clausen Miller PC & Elise D. Allen, Clausen Miller P.C.. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd, Defendant, represented by Whitney Morgan Smith, Cahill Gordon and Reindel. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S. Heres, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy, Jr., Zelle LLP. Certain London Market Insurance Companies, Defendant, Pro se. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of City's 3rd-Party Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the orders of the trial court in the case captioned CITY OF PHOENIX, Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GLENAYRE ELECTRONICS, INC.; WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.; KB HOME HOLDINGS, INC.; RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES, INC.; MDC/WOOD, INC.; UDC HOMES, INC. nka SHEA HOMES OF PHOENIX, INC. (FN) and ELLIOTT HOMES, INC.; SWENGEL- ROBBIN CONTRACTING CO., INC.; AZTEC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; JNC, INC.; UH HOLDINGS, INC.; LOS PAISANOS DEVELOPMENT, INC.; MICHAEL NEWSOME; CHI CONSTRUCTION CO.; CONTINENTAL HOMES, INC.; PULTE HOME CORP.; DEL WEBB CORP.; WITTMAN CONTRACTING CO.; JEFF BLANDFORD INVESTMENTS, INC.; Third-Party Defendants/Appellees, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0739 (Ariz. App.). In 2013, Carlos Tarazon filed a lawsuit alleging he had developed mesothelioma as a result of long-term exposure to asbestos while performing pipe installation and repair for the City and numerous other defendants not parties to this appeal. Tarazon further alleged the City knew of the inherent dangers of asbestos exposure and was negligent in failing to adequately warn and protect him from those risks. The City immediately filed a third-party complaint seeking defense and indemnification from 82 developers and eight contractors allegedly responsible for planning, designing, and constructing the projects on which Tarazon was exposed to asbestos between 1968 and 1993. Within its complaint, the City alleged the third-party defendants were solely responsible for the selection, installation, and disposal of any asbestos-laden products used in their respective projects, and therefore, the Contractors and Developers were required to indemnify the City against Tarazon's claims -- the Contractors by virtue of their construction contracts and right-of-way permits, and the Developers by virtue of City ordinances incorporated within development permits. Appellees are awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21(b). The City appeals the trial court's orders: (1) dismissing its third-party complaint against Appellees because it was not brought within the eight-year period of repose set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-552(A),1 and (2) awarding certain Appellees their attorneys' fees as the successful parties in a contract action pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-341.01(A). This court concluded Section 12-552 applies to governmental entities and that the City's claims are based in contract within the meaning of A.R.S. Section 12-552(F); therefore, the City's claims against Appellees are time-barred. There is no error in the court's grant of attorneys' fees to those Appellees who properly asserted a right to fees and conclude that the amounts awarded were within the court's discretion. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 19, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/WVV8mT from Leagle.com. Phoenix City Attorney's Office, Phoenix, By Brad Holm, Counsel for Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant. Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix Mary R. O'Grady, Esq. -- mogrady@omlaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant. Gallagher & Kennedy PA, Phoenix, By Kevin E. O'Malley, Esq. -- kevin.omalley@gknet.com, Mark A. Fuller, Esq. -- mark.fuller@gknet.com, Thomas A. Maraz, Esq. -- thomas.maraz@gknet.com, Counsel for Third-Party Defendants/Appellees CHI Construction Co., Continental Homes, Inc. Green & Baker Ltd, Scottsdale, By Katherine E. Baker, Esq., Diane L. Bornscheuer, Esq., Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Glenayre Electronics, Inc. Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP, Los Angeles, CA By Brad D. Bleichner, Esq. -- bbleichner@bcrslaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee William Lyon Homes, Inc. Lorber Greenfield & Polito LLP, Phoenix, By Holly P. Davies, Esq. -- hdavies@lorberlaw.com, Alexix G. Terriquez, Esq. -- aterriquez@lorberlaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party Defendants/Appellees KB Home Holdings Inc., Richmond American Homes Inc., MDC/Wood, Inc. Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, Phoenix, By Jill Ann Herman, Esq. -- jherman@wshblaw.com -- Counsel for Third-Party Defendants/Appellees UDC Homes, Inc. nka Shea Homes of Phoenix, Inc. (FN), Elliot Homes, Inc. Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix, By Richard K. Mahrle, Esq. -- rmahrle@gblaw.com, Jason L. Cassidy, Esq. -- jcassidy@gblaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Swengel-Robbins Contracting Co., Inc. Law Offices of Joseph A. Kula, Scottsdale, By Joseph A. Kula, Benjamin R. Eid, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Aztec Construction, Inc. Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Phoenix, By Daniel D. Maynard, Counsel for Third-Party Defendants/Appellees JNC, Inc., UH Holdings, Inc. Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer, PA, Phoenix, By Vincent J. Montell, Michael J. Ponzo, Rita J. Bustos, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Los Paisanos Development, Inc. Michael Newsome, Cave Creek Third-Party Defendant/Appellee. Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, By Michael S. Rubin, Stephen E. Richman, J. Gregory Cahill, Counsel for Third-Party Defendants/Appellees Pulte Home Corp., Del Webb Corp. Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann PC, Phoenix, By Thomas J. Shorall, Jr., Jason J. Boblick, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Wittman Contracting Co. Wilenchik & Bartness PC, Phoenix, By Dennis I. Wilenchik, Mia Nguyen, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Jeff Blandford Investments, Inc. Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bare Metal Defense Bars Claims, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania clarified its application of the so-called "bare metal defense," as recognized by maritime law, to claims brought by plaintiffs against the appealing product manufacturer defendants in the case captioned JOHN B. DEVRIES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under MDL No. 875, Civil Action No. 5:13-00474-ER (E.D. Pa.). In adopting the so-called "bare metal defense" under maritime law and applying it to subsequent MDL cases, the MDL Court (1) has considered plaintiffs' negligent failure-to-warn claims, (2) has determined that, when applicable, the defense bars both strict liability and negligent failure-to-warn claims, and (3) has concluded that maritime law's application of the defense rejects potential liability of a product manufacturer in negligence for products (or component parts) that it did not manufacture or supply. The Plaintiffs allege that John DeVries was exposed to asbestos from various products while serving in the U.S. Navy during the time period 1957 to 1960. After the completion of discovery, numerous defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish causation with respect to any product(s) for which it could be held liable. This Court determined that maritime law was applicable to the claims against each of the product manufacturer Defendants now opposing Plaintiffs' appeal and, after applying maritime law (including the so-called "bare metal defense" as applied under maritime law), granted each of these Defendants' motions. The Plaintiffs thereafter appealed, contending that this Court misapplied the maritime law "bare metal defense" and, in particular, that it failed to consider the viability of Plaintiffs' negligence claims. By way of Order dated February 5, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the case to this MDL Court for explicit consideration and clarification of the issues of whether this MDL Court (1) considered the negligence theory of liability when it granted summary judgment in its entirety to the product manufacturer defendants, (2) concluded that the "bare metal defense" applies to claims sounding in negligence, and (3) considered whether the circumstances of the present case warrant application of the legal rationale by which certain other courts' decisions exempted negligence claims from being barred by the defense. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 18, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/sbH31w from Leagle.com. JOHN B. DEVRIES, Plaintiff, is represented by ROBERT E. PAUL, Esq. -- PAUL REICH & MYERS, PC. ROBERTA G. DEVRIES, Plaintiff, is represented by ROBERT E. PAUL, PAUL REICH & MYERS, PC. HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, Defendant, is represented by BARBARA J. BUBA, Esq. -- WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Defendant, is represented by STEWART R. SINGER, Esq. -- SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murray" to State Court Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles A. Shaw of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted plaintiff Sheree Murray's motion to remand the case captioned SHEREE MURRAY, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of LEROY MURRAY, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.No. 4:14-CV-1638 CAS (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. The matter is before the Court plaintiff Sheree Murray's motion to remand. None of the defendants in this case filed a response in opposition to the motion, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff Sheree Murray filed suit in Missouri state court, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Leroy Murray, against 29 corporate defendants. Plaintiff alleges that her husband, Leroy Murray, was exposed to asbestos that was manufactured, sold, or distributed by the defendants, and as a result of the exposure, he developed lung cancer and died. Plaintiff asserts only state law claims against the defendants. Defendants Crane Co., Warren Pumps, LLC, and CBS Corporation have since been dismissed from this suit, and plaintiff now moves to remand to state court. A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/0iL9Ub from Leagle.com. Sheree Murray, deceased, Plaintiff, is represented by Eric Daniel Jackstadt, Esq. -- NAPOLI SHKOLNIK & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy A. McGuire, Esq. -- tmcguire@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Ashley E. Benoist, Esq. -- abenoist@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, Esq. -- CRIVELLO AND CARLSON. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, Esq. -- goliver@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND OLIVER. The William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Scott Darren Stephenson, Esq. -- stephenson@litchfieldcavo.com -- LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Insurers Lose Summary Judgment Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard G. Stearns of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed defendants Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc., and Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund's cross-motion for summary judgment in the case captioned MASSACHUSETTS INSURERS INSOLVENCY FUND, v. BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC., and BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC, Civil Action No. 15-12291-RGS (D. Mass.). The gist of the Fund's argument is that at various times lawyers for BRS and its Delaware holding company, Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. (BSAI), either expressed the opinion that BRS was Beacon's II's successor (for example, when forwarding asbestos lawsuits that had been mistakenly or deliberately served on BRS), or remained silent when they should have known that the Fund was acting on that assumption. The Fund has failed to meet this burden. At best, the Fund has striven to show that it relied upon an erroneous legal opinion tendered by counsel for BRS and BSAI regarding whether or not the two entities were potentially liable as successors to Beacon II. The Fund has not, however, identified a material misrepresentation of fact upon which it or its predecessors relied, which is essential to establishing the first element of estoppel. The Fund's request for a declaratory judgment absolving it of any further obligations to defend Beacon II under the AMICO policy (whether brought against BRS, BSAI, or the proper party, Beacon Liquidation, Inc.) is patently inconsistent with the court's prior holding. A full text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 25, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/0HOT87 from Leagle.com. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, Plaintiff, is represented by David D. Dowd, Esq. -- Curley & Curley. Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Benjamin M. McGovern, Esq. -- benjamin.mcgovern@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & Scott A. Moore, Esq. -- scott.moore@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Benjamin M. McGovern, Holland & Knight, LLP & Scott A. Moore, Holland & Knight. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment vs. Honeywell in "Schwartz" Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed the judgment in plaintiffs' favor, reversed the decision on punitive damages, and remanded the cause for a new trial on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages in the case captioned MARK SCHWARTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHLEEN SCHWARTZ, ET AL. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, No. 103377, 2016-Ohio-3175 (Ohio App.). Defendant-appellant Honeywell International, Inc., appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict that found Honeywell was 5 percent responsible for the injuries of decedent Kathleen Schwartz, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The amount of the judgment against Honeywell was $1,011,639.92. Plaintiffs-appellees have filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict against them on their claim for punitive damages. A full-text copy of the Journal Entry and Opinion dated May 26, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/2UGF8O from Leagle.com. Steven G. Blackmer, Melanie M. Irwin, Willman & Silvaggio, One Corporate Center, 5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15237, Michael W. Weaver, McDermott, Will & Emery, L.L.P., 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, Attorneys for Appellants, Shawn M. Acton, James L. Ferraro, Anthony Gallucci, John Martin Murphy, Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P., 2200 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Attorneys for Appellee. CBS Corporation f.k.a. Viacom, c/o Prentice Hall Corporation Service, 80 State Street, Albany, New York 12207, for Attorneys for Appellee CBS Corporation f.k.a. Viacom. Eaton Corporation, 1111 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Attorneys for Appellee Eaton Corporation. Ford Motor Co., c/o C T Corporation System, 1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 1010, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Attorneys for Appellee Ford Motor Co. General Electric Corporation, CT Corporation Systems, 1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 101, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Attorneys for Appellee General Electric Corporation. Genuine Parts Company, c/o Grant Norris S A, 2665 West Dublin Granville Road, Columbus, Ohio 43235, for Attorneys for Appellee Genuine Parts Company. Pneumo Abex Corp Successor, Inc., c/o Prentice Hall Corp, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Attorneys for Appellee Pneumo Abex Corp. Successor Inc. Rockwell Automation Company, c/o CT Corporation System, 350 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201, for Attorneys for Appellee Rockwell Automation Company. Schneider Electric USA Inc., c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorp Service, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Attorneys for Appellee Schneider Electric USA Inc. Union Carbide Corporation, c/o C T Corporation System S A, 1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 1010, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Attorneys for Appellee Union Carbide Corporation. Westinghouse Electric Corporation AK, c/o CSC Lawyers Incorp Services, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Attorneys for Appellee Westinghouse Electric Corporation AK. ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCSD1 Named Defendant in Asbestos Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Palmer, writing for Sheridan Media, reported that Johnson County School District No. 1 has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit relating to asbestos exposure by a company that performed work in the district 30 years ago. According to a news release from Dr. Gerry Chase, Superintendent of Schools for JCSD1, the district is one of 24 defendants named in a lawsuit filed in Natrona County District Court relating to asbestos exposure from work done by a Casper Company, Advanced Heating & Plumbing, Inc. The company's owners, Lavonne Denise Whitaker Perkins and Ronald Graham Perkins, claim they were exposed to asbestos while working in Johnson County between 1984 and 1986, resulting in harm to Mrs. Perkins. The superintendent said the district denies the claims and will "vigorously defend the suit." Dr. Chase was not available for further comment, but Sheridan Media will continue to follow this developing story. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Bans Imports of Asbestos-Containing Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Edmunds, writing for Business Day, reported that imports of products containing asbestos will no longer be allowed, the environment minister says. The importation of raw asbestos is already banned. Minister Nick Smith said exposure to asbestos posed a risk of respiratory disease and was the single biggest cause of work- related fatalities, responsible for the deaths of 170 people a year. An inventory released by the Ministry for the Environment in 2014 shows asbestos is no longer imported for use in buildings or where members of the public are likely to be exposed to it. But it is still imported for a limited number of specialist products, such as gaskets, seals and brake linings. "The Government recognises there are a few specialised uses for which there is no practical alternative. For that reason, there is scope to be granted a permit to import -- but only in very select circumstances," Smith said. "A permit will only be issued if there is genuinely no alternative product available, or if the alternative would be disproportionately expensive. In addition, an importer would have to be able to show that any risk of asbestos exposure can be safely managed. "I expect the only people or organisations likely to need to import these kinds of products will be very limited and associated with older machinery, and a small number of vintage plane or ship restorers. The Environmental Protection Authority will consider applications for permits case-by-case." Mike Bradshaw, of the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust, said there were relatively few pieces of equipment left that contained asbestos. He said it was used on all railway machinery built until the 1920s but was phased out after that. His organisation had replaced all existing asbestos in its machinery in the 1980s. Graeme Swan, MTA's repair sector specialist, said the ban was unlikely to be a problem for the New Zealand automotive sector, either. He said most major manufacturers had stopped using asbestos. "MTA would support the government in this decision, for the health benefits it would provide." The ban will not affect asbestos in existing buildings or products. The existing stock of products containing asbestos is managed through other legislation -- primarily the Health and Safety at Work Act regulations -- and such products are phased out and safely disposed of as they reach the end of their useful life. "The decision to ban asbestos-containing products was made this month, and the necessary Orders in Council are currently being drafted. The prohibition will take effect on October 1," Smith said. "This ban is part of the Government's programme of reducing exposure to harmful products. It will bring New Zealand into line with overseas jurisdictions such as Australia, and will save lives." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Remand of Exposure Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Delaware magistrate judge has recommended that an asbestos exposure suit be remanded to state court, concluding that there was no causal connection between "the claims and the conduct performed under color of a federal office." In a June 10 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that the evidence indicated that the U.S. Navy did not approve any asbestos-containing product manufactured by the removing defendant. The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Donnie Lacey Wines, alleging that he developed mesothelioma. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Court Affirms Summary Judgment Awards ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Maine's highest court has affirmed summary judgment awards entered in favor of four asbestos defendants, opining that the evidence regarding causation in the case "does not rise above speculation." In the June 10 opinion, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court further held that a fact-finder would not be able to reasonably conclude that the decedent inhaled asbestos fibers from the defendants' products. The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Edward Grant, contending that his employment for Bath Iron Works required him to work with asbestos-containing products used while constructing and renovating ships. ASBESTOS UPDATE: KiwiRail's Asbestos Headache Continues in Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- RNZ.com reported that the Rail and Maritime Transport Union wants the authority to determine whether Chinese workers hired to do the job were given New Zealand pay and conditions. It also wants any future remedial work to be done by New Zealand workers, and it said KiwiRail breached its employment contract in allowing the work to be done by Chinese workers under warranty. KiwiRail denies this and is saying little else because the hearing is imminent. The trouble began when KiwiRail bought 48 locomotives from China. Forty of them were found to have asbestos sprayed on metal sheeting in the engine room and were removed from service in February 2014. After the discovery, the trains were sidelined and progressively restored to service under varing conditions, depending on how clean they were. The union always felt that blocking all the engines would stop KiwiRail from running properly. The union said at any one time, 15 to 20 Chinese workers were employed in New Zealand fixing the trains. After the deal went sour, KiwiRail reached an out-of-court settlement with the Chinese manufacturers, but the terms are confidential. Despite that, KiwiRail said the saga cost it $12 million in both lost revenue and the cost of refurbishment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Outside Kingsgrove Food Biz ------------------------------------------------------------ Jackson Vernon, writing for ABC News, reported that investigations are underway after a large pile of asbestos material was dumped outside a food service business in Sydney's inner-south. Staff arrived at work yesterday to find the waste at the front of the business on The Crescent in Kingsgrove. A spokesman for the Environment Protection Authority said up to three trailer loads of waste had been dumped in the industrial area. "The business owner was reviewing video footage on Sunday night and observed the dumped waste," he said. "The RID (Regional Illegal Dumping) Squad are also on site to investigate the dump and are currently reviewing security footage in the area to try and ascertain any useful evidence." Darly Atkins from the RID urged anyone who might have seen a car in the area on Sunday night to come forward. "We are following several leads. There are some local operators who we'll be looking into the jobs that have been done recently and there are some other leads that we are pursuing," he said. "The material will be removed this afternoon and our investigators will go down the path of trying to identify the material and hopefully identify the perpetrator, the person who placed it there." Employee concerned about health impacts Tosh Claydon works at the business, which supplies food products and packaging, and said employees wearing face masks covered up the material this morning. "It's terrible, shocking, unbelievable, [a] low-life, some low- life people [are responsible]," he said. "The fibres start flying through the air, you don't know where it's going to go." He said he was worried about the impact it would have on the business and on people's health. "We're a food service company so it's a very delicate operation," he said. "Like [with] fibres flying through the air, you can never tell what's going to happen. "I've had throat cancer before but I've recovered OK but cancer is a terrible thing, it's shocking." The Georges River Council said in a statement it would update the community as more information came available. "Georges River Council is currently investigating the asbestos that was dumped over the long weekend at The Crescent, Kingsgrove," a statement said. "If you see anyone engaging in the illegal dumping of materials, please alert council on 9330 6400 or the Regional Illegal Dumping squad." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman's Death Caused by Washing Overalls --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Thorp, writing for Grimsby Telegraph, reported that a pensioner who used to wash her husband's asbestos-covered overalls died as the result of an industrial disease, an inquest heard. Margaret Maggs died aged 66 at her home on Knightsbridge, New Waltham. An inquest at Cleethorpes Town Hall heard how her husband Colin Maggs, who worked as engineer in the trawler industry, would often come home with asbestos dust in his hair and on his overalls. After suspicions that Mrs Maggs' death may have been caused as a result of exposure to asbestos, her doctor recommended a file be prepared for the coroner. In 2007 she had been diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma -- a form of cancer which can be triggered by exposure to asbestos. A statement read to the court written by Mrs Maggs' in 2008, said her husband's work clothes used to be "filthy" with dust. "From 1967 to 1970, I was still living at home but seeing Colin nearly every day. He would come for lunch at my parent's home and he was still in his overalls," it said. "He would keep them on, during which time we would spend about an hour together. "He did not have a washing machine in his bungalow so I took his overalls and some of the other clothes back to my parents' home to wash them." It added: "He only washed his overalls once every couple of weeks and they were absolutely filthy by that stage. "I remember laying them on the floor and trying to brush them with a yard brush to try and get some of the dirt off before washing them." Mrs Maggs also explained how she used to travel in the same car as her husband while he was wearing his overalls. The couple married in November 1970. Her husband worked as an electrician at Northern Trawlers Ltd at that time. Prior to this he worked as an engineer at Ross Group, where he carried out repair work on trawlers and was often exposed to asbestos dust. Coroner Paul Kelly, pictured, said: "At various times between 1961 and 1974, Mrs Maggs was exposed to asbestos while washing Mr Maggs' work clothes. "He was an electrician mainly working in the trawler industry and was exposed to asbestos as part of his normal duties. "This is secondary asbestos exposure but nonetheless it is appropriate to report that Mrs Maggs died of an industrial disease." ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Dumped in Chilliwack River Valley ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Feinberg, writing for Chilliwack Progress, reported that someone went way out of their way to illegally dump more than a dozen bags of asbestos-laden materials in the Chilliwack River Valley -- again. It looks like it's becoming a problem. A veteran conservation officer told The Progress, he had not personally seen other asbestos dumping cases before in the CRV. It's the fourth time in six months. "In my 20 year career, I can't remember other calls like this," said Conservation Officer Don Stahl. They found 14 bags of what looks like construction waste, and some was confirmed to contain asbestos. It was a mix of extra-large, black commercial garbage bags, along with yellow ones denoting they contain some sort of chemical or hazardous waste. The dump site location, off a forest services road, near the Ford Mountain Correctional Centre, made it suspicious. "They went really out of their way not to be seen," the officer said. "And in the last seven months we've had quite an alarming quantity of these calls." Four of these dump incidents have so far cost the province, and taxpayers just under $12,000 for proper disposal. He called out an emergency response officer from Surrey to investigate and identify the dumped material. There could be several reasons why it is happening. "It may be, as we were led to understand, that certain landfills are not accepting these materials anymore. Number two is the cost, it's not as cheap as dumping household garbage for example. And three, is laziness," he said. They were notified in late May, the bags spotted by local citizens who were scouting other dump sites and came upon the mess. "It could have been someone renovating a home who hired a company that wasn't reputable, or a fly-by-night operation," said the CO. Instead of paying the disposal fees, and doing it properly, they just unload it deep in the back country, and pocket the difference. But the criminals are taking a big risk. Those willing to discard illegal and hazardous cancer-causing materials like asbestos in the pristine back country should be forewarned, it's not just a little fine if they get caught. They could lose their vehicles and more, added Stahl. It's also hard to pinpoint how long the bags had been there, but the cleanup was conducted Sunday by a crew contracted to dispose of it properly. They had to gather, re-bag, label and haul away the deteriorating mess of what looked like construction demolition debris, gyp-rock, tiles and insulation. Photos were taken at the dump site and sent to the COs in late May, said Chris Gadsden, member of the Fraser Valley Illegal Dumping Alliance. They are actively pushing for more enforcement in the area, or something to quell the practice of deleterious dumping. '"We have now reached the point something has to be done to change things around as this has gone on for way too long," said Gadsden. "In 2002 we realized something had to be done then, but it has been cleanups and trying to educate users of the Chilliwack River Valley ever since, but it has not improved very much." As the population and number of visitors continues to grow, it gets worse. "Many people say close these areas off, and it may help that area, but they just go elsewhere to dump garbage and leave a messy camp after a few days' stay. "Our province is just too big to block everything off." City of Chilliwack has been taking steps to make the Bailey Landfill able to accept asbestos. The CO has some advice for the public who want to protect the environment from illegal dumping. If they spot a suspicious vehicle, say with 10 to 20 bags of garbage in the back of a pickup heading up the valley, try to take a photo of the bags. Record the licence plate number and get a detailed description of the vehicle, if possible, the CO said, and call it in to the RAPP line. A plate number is not enough since criminals often slap a stolen plate onto their vehicle to commit crimes. The COs need the specific make, and model of the suspect vehicle, and any distinguishing elements like roof racks. "But if we do catch someone in the act of polluting, it's not just a fine. We would advocate seizing the vehicle through civil forfeiture, especially in a case like this where it's hazardous materials, known to cause cancer," said Stahl. At this point they have no suspects, and no leads. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Bldg Sites Sent Asbestos-filled Materials ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Cullen, writing for The Irish Times, reported that 20 building sites in Co Wicklow and Dublin were supplied with material contaminated with a cancer-causing mineral from a local quarry. The sites that received asbestos-containing material from the Co Wicklow quarry include a school under construction in Greystones and a variety of other building projects in the two counties. The Irish Times revealed that Ballinclare quarry in south Wicklow has been closed, after testing uncovered the presence of naturally occurring asbestos in the stone it produces. The problem arose when Kilsaran Group, which owns the quarry, blasted open a new seam of rock in one corner of the site. Further inquiries have established that 20 sites in the two counties are affected by the dissemination of the contaminated building material from the quarry. Eleven of these are to be remediated through the removal of contaminated material from nine sites in Co Wicklow and two in Co Dublin. Some 25,000 tons of material will be returned to the quarry and covered with concrete and soil in order to render it safe, according to Wicklow County Council. Building sites sealed off over asbestos contamination fears What do I do if ceilings contain asbestos? CIE coach-builder exposed to asbestos from engines, inquest told At the remaining sites, the suspect material has been covered with concrete and there is no immediate danger to the public. The approach to these sites will be considered in a second phase of the remediation process. The council said it plans to step up the remediation of affected sites. At present, work is ongoing at one of the affected sites at Ashford and small amounts of material have been removed from two sites in Co Dublin. A methodology for dealing with three further sites in Wicklow had also been agreed, a spokesman said. In total, nine sites in Wicklow and two in Dublin have been sealed off and will be subject to remediation, the council said. Danger The remaining sites, where the contaminated material has been covered by concrete, do not pose an immediate danger to health. A council spokesman described the emergence of the naturally occurring asbestos as "a freakish thing" and insisted Kilsaran had done everything it could to deal with the problem after it emerged. CCTV camera footage has been used to establish the movement of trucks used to transport material from the quarry and so identify where contaminated material might be found. The blast occurred on April 18th, but the problem with the material was not identified until May 13th, according to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA). The asbestos was first spotted visually and its presence in the quarry was confirmed by laboratory tests ordered by Kilsaran. A spokesman for the HSA said following the action taken, the risk posed by the hazardous material was "zero". "We have satisfied ourselves there is no risk to the public or to workers." Neither was there any evidence to suggest a problem with any material mined from the quarry before the new seam was opened by blasting last April. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Fully Fund Share of Pittsburgh Corning Trust ----------------------------------------------------------------- PPG (NYSE:PPG) announced that the company has fully funded its portion of the Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Trust that was established by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in May 2016. PPG fulfilled initial funding requirements June 9, based on agreed-upon terms of the trust settlement. The obligations include cash funding of approximately $500 million (pretax) and the transfer of about 2.78 million shares of PPG common stock, which were hedged at approximately $22 per share (incremental cash payment of about $60 million). These shares were already included in the company's outstanding diluted share count. Lastly, PPG relinquished any claim to its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning and conveyed to the Trust its ownership interest in Pittsburgh Corning's European subsidiary. In addition to the initial funding obligation, the company exercised an option to prepay all future cash obligations, totaling a net of approximately $250 million (pretax), including a 5.5 percent prepayment discount. All payments were applied against a previously established PPG reserve for the total asbestos-trust obligation. The company utilized cash on hand for the payments, and this funding will have no impact on PPG's previously stated cash-deployment targets. These actions complete PPG's funding obligations to the Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Trust, and PPG has no ongoing responsibility for the Trust's operation or management. PPG: WE PROTECT AND BEAUTIFY THE WORLD(TM) At PPG (NYSE:PPG), we work every day to develop and deliver the paints, coatings and materials that our customers have trusted for more than 130 years. Through dedication and creativity, we solve our customers' biggest challenges, collaborating closely to find the right path forward. With headquarters in Pittsburgh, we operate and innovate in more than 70 countries and reported net sales of $15.3 billion in 2015. We serve customers in construction, consumer products, industrial and transportation markets and aftermarkets. To learn more, visit www.ppg.com. Contacts PPG Media Contact: Mark Silvey, +1-412-434-3046 Corporate Communications silvey@ppg.com or PPG Investor Contact: Scott Minder, +1-412-434-3466 Investor Relations sminder@ppg.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban in US Inches Closer with New Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that federal lawmakers passed one of the most important environmental bills that will overhaul how the U.S. government regulates toxic chemicals, and it could bring the nation closer to banning asbestos. The U.S. Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1979. The bill will give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greater power to better review chemicals for safety and restrict their use. One of the reasons asbestos is not banned in the U.S. is because the current law requires the EPA to find the "least burdensome" way for the industry to control asbestos -- an unsurmountable task for the regulatory agency given its current restrictions. The latest proposal eliminates that provision. Move Now, Awareness Group Says Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), issued a press release stating the proposed legislation will give the EPA "clear authority to ban asbestos, a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure." However, Reinstein warns that if the bill is signed into law, it may still take seven years for the EPA to assess, regulate and ban the deadly mineral. "An estimated 100,000 Americans will lose their lives to asbestos- related diseases during that 7-year timeline and countless more could be needlessly exposed to asbestos," she said. Asbestos exposure is the leading cause of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 people in the U.S. annually. Breathing the toxic mineral also causes lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses. The ADAO calls for quick action on the asbestos crisis. "The EPA must limit delay by including asbestos in the list of the first chemicals it evaluates and quickly exercising its authority under this legislation to ban asbestos," Reinstein said. "Until a complete ban is in place, asbestos will be found in construction materials, automobile parts, and even children's toys." Bill Increases EPA Leverage The bill is named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a public- health advocate who banned smoking on all domestic airline flights in 1989. Also known as S.697, the bill allows the EPA to: -- Evaluate new and existing chemicals using a new risk-based safety standard that includes vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women. -- Impose clear and enforceable deadlines on chemical manufacturers. -- Impose more rigorous public disclosure and transparency on chemical manufacturers. -- Receive additional funding to carry out its new responsibilities. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill in 2015, and lawmakers expect President Barack Obama will sign the legislation. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May also committed to bring Canada closer to banning asbestos. Bipartisan Legislation Concerns Some Democrats While the White House and top Democrats support the bill, other high-ranking Democrats feel the bipartisan text may limit states that already act more progressively against toxic substances. California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont already regulate chemicals aggressively. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, all fought for the bill to include language enabling states to maintain their current chemical legislation if it's more stringent than the new federal guidelines. The legislation now includes a proposal grandfathering state laws in place before April 22 to trump federal law. Meanwhile, development of new state regulations would be allowed in tandem with development of federal rules. States with limited chemical regulation would follow the new federal standard. Pelosi, Hoyer and Pallone issued a statement saying the measure "is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, but it is a long overdue step forward to protect families and communities from toxic substances." The White House issued a similar sentiment: "The bill is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law." Environmental Defense Fund Lauds Legislation On the day the Senate approved the bill, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist Richard Denison said "today's vote is a historic victory for public health." While Denison admits the legislation misses the mark in some ways, he says "it fixes the biggest problems with our current law by requiring safety reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals before they can be sold, and removing barriers that prevented the EPA from banning asbestos and other harmful chemicals." For the ADAO, the legislation opens the way for immediate action. "We can't afford to wait another year, another month, another day," Reinstein said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Gym Unlikely a Health Risk ------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Brown, writing for Otago Daily Times, reported that the level of asbestos exposure gymnasts suffered at Dunedin Gymnastics Academy is highly unlikely to present a health risk, Public Health South medical officer of health Dr Keith Reid says. Asbestos was discovered on the rafters and windowsills of the academy's Willis St gym, causing it to be closed. Air tests were negative for the fibres, but some matting returned a positive result. Despite the discovery it was unlikely to cause long-term health effects, Dr Reid said. One of the biggest risk factors to those exposed to asbestos was smoking and it seemed unlikely that would be an issue for the athletes, he said. "Young gymnasts have much less likelihood than the general population of smoking." While no safe level of asbestos exposure had ever been established medically, it seemed unlikely the exposure would result in elevated risks of long-term health effects. "In terms of the likely levels of exposure, there's not any particular health effects that I could point to and say 'this is going to happen'," Dr Reid said. There was a "very, very small increased risk" of cancer. "One in a million," he said of the elevated chances of contracting the disease. "If people were exposed to asbestos all day every day. "It's extremely unlikely you will have any long-term health effects from training or competing in the DGA gym. "There's no real risk of short-term effects at the levels they had likely been exposed to in this building." Despite the minimal risk, the academy had made the right choice by abandoning the gym and discarding any potentially contaminated equipment. "It's been a huge disruption, but the thought is that's the only way you can protect the gymnasts," he said. He praised the response from the academy. Dunedin Gymnastics Academy president Louise Taylor said parents were taking news of the contamination in their stride. "People have been really supportive and positive and appreciate the fast response," she said. "The advice is that the health risk is very low. The air tests, which took place over a four-hour period, came back negative so it is not something in the air normally." Hard-surfaced equipment at the facility had been cleaned and equipment with permeable surfaces had been scrapped at a cost of about $120,000. WorkSafe was advised and was "very happy with the steps we have taken", she said. "All cleaning and removal of equipment has been carried out on the advice and supervision of Southern Insulation." ASBESTOS UPDATE: HRL Wins Contamination Contract in NZ ------------------------------------------------------ Proactive Investors reported that HRL Holdings Ltd (ASX:HRL) has won a 3-year contract to provide asbestos consultancy services to New Zealand's Southern District Health Board (SDHB). This fits neatly with HRL's acquisition of the business assets of RJL & Associates Ltd, located in North Island, New Zealand, for NZ$0.5 million which provides environmental services including the management of asbestos and hazardous materials. Government-funded SDHB has a turnover of NZ$800 million per annum and is responsible for publicly funded health and hospital services in the Southland and Otago regions of New Zealand. HRL, which was initially a geothermal company, later restructured its operations to focus on environmental technical services, making a string of acquisitions in the field. The aim of the acquisition was to expand HRL's business in property contamination testing and work place drug testing in New Zealand. For the nine months to March 2016 end, gross receipts for HRL were $6.8 million and it was cash flow positive for the nine months. The new direction of management of asbestos and hazardous materials and workplace drug testing are large growth areas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Changes to WCA Breath of Fresh Air for Victims --------------------------------------------------------------- PSNews.com.au reported that changes to the Workers Compensation Act 1951 that will allow for streamlined access to compensation for workers suffering from imminently fatal asbestos-related diseases have passed the Legislative Assembly. Minister for Workplace Safety, Mick Gentleman said the amendments would create a fairer compensation system. "The amendments to the workers' compensation legislation will allow eligible workers to make a claim with the Default Insurance Fund without first having to exhaust all other avenues for compensation," Mr Gentleman said. "This legislation helps expedite the awful process which Bernie Banton and others experienced attempting to gain compensation for employment-related asbestos diseases." Changes to speed up compensation He said claimants would be able to achieve finality from their end before they passed away. Mr Gentleman said workers would benefit from earlier access to essential services such as medical treatment, rehabilitation expenses and weekly compensation. He said they would also be eligible for a lump-sum statutory compensation payment of $140,505 over and above other entitlements, the aim of which was to provide some financial peace of mind for their family. "In addition to streamlining and offering a fairer process to sufferers, these amendments will also ensure the Territory's position on the administration of asbestos-related claims is consistent with the majority of other Australian States and Territories," Mr Gentleman said. The legislative changes will come into effect on 1 July 2017. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Accountant Dies of Asbestos Disease ------------------------------------------------------------ Cornish Guardian reported that a retired Lostwithiel accountant died from industrial disease linked to exposure to asbestos, an inquest in Truro heard. Douglas Swire, 85, died at Royal Cornwall Hospital on September 20 last year following a period of poor health, which included respiratory problems. In the early 1960s, Mr Swire worked as an accountant for Mullard Colour Tubes, a glass manufacturing firm in Burnley, Lancashire, where he was born. The firm was based on a site which, in 2004, was the subject of a report into potential contamination, including asbestos. The inquest heard that although Mr Swire worked in an office and not in the main factory, it is "certain" that he came into contact with the harmful mineral. Read: Family of Newquay man who died from asbestos exposure want answers into his death Stephen Covell, assistant coroner for Cornwall, said there is evidence that asbestos was present in the factory in the form of insulation wrapped around furnace ducts or pipes. Mr Covell said: "I find that there is evidence to persuade me that certainly during that time, Douglas would have been exposed to asbestos fibre. "In the 1960s, the dangers of asbestos were not known." Mr Covell also said that it was possible, although not certain, that Mr Swire came into contact with asbestos in subsequent employment in Durham, and later in Bodmin. Mr Swire moved to Cornwall in the early 1990s. Mr Swire's daughter, Susan, also told the inquest that her father enjoyed DIY, which included once taking a storage heater apart, and often coming across old sheds and garages. However Mr Covell said he was "not convinced" that this possible exposure caused Mr Swire's disease. A post-mortem examination, carried out by pathologist Dr Juliane Stolte, found that Mr Swire died of mesothelioma, a cancer of tissue in the lungs which is especially associated with exposure to asbestos. In August last year, a CT scan identified irregularities in Mr Swire's right lung. He subsequently developed chest pain and breathlessness, and after a period in hospital, died on September 20 after suffering a cardiac arrest. Concluding the inquest, Mr Covell said: "In order for me to reach a conclusion of industrial disease, I have to be persuaded that Douglas died of a disease caused by his work. "I don't have to come to the conclusion as to which period of employment caused the disease, but I do have to be satisfied that exposure at work caused it, and not exposure outside of work. "The evidence of [pathologist] Dr Stolte also determines that scarring of Mr Swire's lungs was longstanding, and the employment at Mullards in the 1960s was longstanding." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Imports from China Provokes Anger ---------------------------------------------------------- Angelique Donnellan, writing for ABC News, reported that a work safety authority will not reveal how many portable structures are under watch across South Australia due to imported asbestos. It was revealed that SA-based company Australian Portable Camps was being investigated over imports from China which illegally contained the deadly substance. Asbestos imports have been banned for more than a decade. It remains unclear when the material was imported, how many of the company's portable structures might be affected and where they are located across the state. Australian Portable Camps said most of the tainted cement board had not been used for production and was now quarantined from use. It said it was working with government agency SafeWork SA to get rid of the material. It was revealed early this year that Adelaide contractor Robin Johnson Engineering unknowingly imported from China building products containing asbestos. The company said the materials had been certified as asbestos-free at the time of purchase and were used in flooring of two electrical substations on the Seaford rail line in Adelaide's southern suburbs. In March, the ABC asked Australian Border Force for a list of products sent to Australia by a Chinese company linked to the Seaford line contamination. The ABC is yet to receive the manifest but it has become clear Australian Portable Camps received products from the same manufacturer. Senator Nick Xenophon is on a federal parliamentary committee looking into non-conforming building products, and said the latest case highlighted a communications breakdown between authorities. "The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and Border Force needs to explain to Australians why they haven't been communicating this information immediately to state authorities, to the companies involved so [that] public safety is not at risk," he said. "With something as important as this a substance, that can kill people with even minimal exposure, I don't think [Australian Border Force] get it." Australian Border Force said it was unable to comment because of an ongoing investigation, but said it took seriously concerns about importation of asbestos-contaminated products. 'It just crushes the breath out of you' Members of the Asbestos Victims Association, who meet every month in Adelaide, say the importation issue has provoked anger. It upsets Lesley Shears, who lost her husband to an asbestos- related disease. "The thought [upsets me] that the imports are still coming in because China doesn't count chrysotile as being asbestos," she said. She said there had been few prosecutions despite powers existing. Maxine Williams also lost her husband and said the latest controversy saddened her. "Something that is being allowed into the country by government areas; it just should not be happening but it is happening and it's sad," she said. Mesothelioma sufferer Steve Kirwan feared a new generation of victims might emerge from the imports problem. He was exposed to asbestos when he was an apprentice fitter in England in the 1970s but was only diagnosed last year. "It should be banned, obviously, it's got to be banned all over the world," he said. "The tumour ... eventually crushes your lung and it's malignant so it spreads to your other one, so it just crushes the breath out of you," he said. Mr Kirwan is getting an experimental treatment but said he faced significant out-of-pocket expenses because it was for a drug which was not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for his condition. "It's going to cost me $4,500 every three weeks," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Man To Be Arraigned on Removal Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ WandTV.com reported that a Sherman man is due in court on Tuesday to be arraigned on charges related to asbestos removal at the Pillsbury Mills Plant is Springfield. The U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of Illinois says Joseph Chernis, IV, 33, will be arraigned on charges related to alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and for allegedly making false statements related to the removal of asbestos at the Pillsbury Mills Plant. According to a release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, the indictment alleges that Chernis hired an untrained individual to illegally remove dry asbestos pipe insulation from multiple buildings at the plant, resulting in the Dryer building to be demolished with more than 1,000 linear feet of asbestos remaining inside the structure. Chernis also faces two charges of making false statements, with the alleged statements being made during a hearing in court in October 1, 2015 regarding work being performed at the plant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Industry Kept Secret That Products Were Deadly --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Formuzis, writing for EcoWatch, reported that the asbestos industry was well aware that asbestos was deadly. Yet, the companies that mined asbestos and those that exposed workers, military personnel and consumers to it and their insurers kept what they knew secret for decades -- endangering hundreds of thousands of Americans, many of whom perished as a result. Even in recent years, decades after the dangers of asbestos became widely known, some companies continue trying to cover up -- even destroy -- evidence of their products' devastation to workers, their families and many others who have been sickened and died from asbestos diseases. Today, some of the most well-known companies in the country are lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would tip the scales of justice heavily in their favor when facing lawsuits from people who are sick and dying. Modern knowledge of asbestos' dangers is well over a century old. In 1900, a London doctor discovered asbestos fibers in the lungs of a textile factory worker who died at the age of 33 from severe pulmonary fibrosis, leading the physician to believe asbestos was the cause of death. By 1918, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics noticed a growing number of unusual deaths for those who worked with asbestos. By the early 1930s a name was given to the disease, asbestosis, for those who died after being exposed to asbestos on the job. While banned in more than 50 other countries, asbestos remains legal and used in the U.S. and the diseases it causes kill up to 15,000 Americans each year. Industry was Aware of the Asbestos Danger In 1948, an internal memo from an insulation industry scientist warned that asbestos-based insulation caused asbestosis. "I realize that our findings regarding Kaylo (brand of insulation) are less favorable than anticipated. However, since Kaylo is capable of producing asbestosis, it is better to discover it now in animals rather than later in industrial workers." -- Dr. Arthur J. Vorwald, director, Trudeau Foundation, Nov. 16, 1948 Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved and a national tragedy averted if the insulation industry responded appropriately to the science and removed asbestos from its products. It did not. Instead, it continued to manufacture one of the most widely used asbestos products without informing workers or the public. A 1949 internal Exxon memo titled "Company Confidential" lists "Cancer of Lungs" as a disease likely caused by asbestos. In 1958, an inter-office memo from the National Gypsum Co., which mined and used asbestos, stamped "Personal & Confidential" reads: "Just as certain as death and taxes . . . if you inhale asbestos dust you get asbestosis." (M.C.M Pollard, National Gypsum Co. Sept. 22, 1958.) Hiding the Danger from Workers and the Public Despite a litany of corporate memos acknowledging the medical literature on the affects of asbestos, most companies profiting from its use continued to expose workers and the public to it for decades. One of the most notorious industry memos, from 1966, shows just how callous executives were toward factory workers who were being exposed to asbestos. The director of purchases for the Bendix Corporation (now Honeywell) wrote in a memo to an official with the Canadian Johns Manville Co.: "My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products why not die from it." -- E.A. Martin, Bendix Corporation, Sept. 12, 1966 Today, Honeywell is one of the biggest corporate backers of legislation, the so-called FACT Act, passed by the House and awaiting action in the Senate that would delay and deny compensation to those who have been sickened from asbestos disease. Between 2010 and 2015, the company contributed nearly $250,000 to a small number of House Republicans who were instrumental in moving the bill through Congress. An Aug. 7, 1978 memo by an official at Babcock and Wilcox, a company that designs, engineers and manufactures boilers and other power generation equipment, acknowledged the company was aware it was violating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards set to limit worker exposure to asbestos fibers. The company decided to investigate the problem but not to warn workers who were being exposed. Instead, the company official wrote: "The investigation is going to be handled as discreetly as possible. It is a concern of the meeting attendees that a labor violation such as a walkout or an OSHA citation would be forthcoming if the hourly labor force was aware of the apparent danger of asbestos exposure. . . . As the situation stands right now no one in the meeting wants the warning signs posted at this time." -- T.L. Wharton, Babcock & Wilcox, Aug. 7, 1978 While the death toll from asbestos-triggered diseases continued to mount, the industry remained silent on what it knew to be the truth about the risk to workers. A 1971 memo from a Ford Motor Co. executive, unearthed by the Center for Public Integrity, argued that $1.25 per car was too much to spend on safer alternatives to asbestos brakes, concluding the "cost penalty" of switching to metal or carbon brakes "is severe." Another asbestos industry giant, Union Carbide, went on the offensive when OSHA issued its first asbestos regulations for worker safety in 1972. That same year, the company issued a memorandum to sales executives who might get angry calls from customers concerned about the new regulations. "If the customer is persistent and threatens to eliminate asbestos -- a certain amount of aggressiveness may be effective. Words and catch phrases such as "premature," "irrational" or "avoiding the inevitable" will sometimes turn the table. "The main objective is to keep the customer on the defensive, make him justify his position. . . . Change the mood before discussing anything pertinent about the new regulations. Alternating between an aggressive and submissive attitude is confusing and allows you to bide your time. . . . Don't cover too much ground in one confrontation. Even rabies shots are spaced at moderate intervals." -- B.L. Ingalis, Union Carbide June 22, 1972 Public Relations and Science for Sale A speech from an asbestos industry expert dated June 7, 1973, describes a plan to sway the U.S. press, which had been increasingly reporting on the health impacts of asbestos exposure. "The 'good' that asbestos does in protecting lives and property is of no concern to the press. . . . "The press relations battle will therefore be won, not when the media starts to print positive or balanced articles about asbestos, but when the press ceases to print anything about asbestos at all. "And now, having heard the bad side of the public relations problems, it's time for some good news. And the the good news is that despite all the negative articles on asbestos-health that have appeared . . . very few people have been paying attention." Matthew M. Swetonic, executive secretary, Asbestos Information Association/North American, June 7, 1973 In the early 1980s, as the U.S. Gypsum Company was being sued by public school districts seeking compensation for the removal of the company's asbestos products, it hired the international public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton to help. The firm designed a comprehensive communications strategy to dissuade other lawsuits and shift the public's perception about asbestos and the asbestos industry. In its plan, Hill and Knowlton called for the creation of a "third-party panel of independent experts to be available for testimony, commentary and technical support in appropriate markets and forums." By 1984 a number of asbestos companies adopted another recommendation by Hill and Knowlton and formed the front group, the Safe Buildings Alliance (SBA), that allowed the industry to pool resources to push back against its critics in a number of venues, including the media. As Hill and Knowlton described in its recommendations, the SBA "could also act to deflect attention away from affected companies" and "take the heat from activist industry critics." In 2001, the Ford Motor Company, concerned about mounting lawsuits brought by former auto workers who blamed their mesothelioma on the asbestos-laced brakes the company once made, decided to try and shift the science in its favor in order to sow doubt into the prevailing consensus that auto mechanics are at greater risk of becoming sick with mesothelioma -- a disease that the only known cause is from exposure to asbestos. The company hired a well-known industry consultant, Dennis Paustenbach and his then-firm Exponent and another, Cardno ChemRisk that Paustenbach started in the mid 1980's, to conduct a series of studies, articles for publication as well as expert testimony. Of course, Paustenbach's work on behalf of Ford found that those who worked with or around brake pads were not at greater risk of being diagnosed with mesothelioma. All told, Ford spent more than $40 million between the two consulting firms. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Co. Under Probe for Asbestos Imports -------------------------------------------------------------- Angelique Donnellan, writing for ABC, reported that an Adelaide company is being investigated for importing building products from China that illegally contain asbestos, six months after it was revealed asbestos was also detected in electrical substations on the Seaford rail line. Australian Portable Camps, which makes structures for the mining and construction sectors, found its cement fibre board imported from China contained white asbestos. The company said most of the contaminated board had not been used, and since it became aware of the problem the board had been quarantined from use. Six months ago, asbestos was also detected in cement fibre boards used by Adelaide contractor Robin Johnson Engineering to build the electrical substations on the Seaford rail line. At the time, the contractor said the cement fibre board was certified as "asbestos-free" when it was purchased. Attorney-General John Rau told Parliament the latest company was being investigated by Safework SA, and staff had been made aware of the discovery. "Workers and former workers have been informed of the situation and have been provided with counselling and health assessments," Mr Rau said. "Safework SA has been onsite to inform workers about asbestos health risks and about exposure." The ABC has been investigating imports of asbestos-tainted building products and has learnt Australian Border Force holds hundreds of documents related to concerns. The ABC sought information about the Chinese manufacturer which supplied the tainted products used on the Seaford line. As a result of those inquiries Australian Border Force confirmed Australian Portable Camps also received products from the same suspect manufacturer. Importing contaminated products a 'growing concern' Workplace safety authorities have been monitoring dozens of building sites across the nation where tainted imported products have been used. Peter Tighe from the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency said asbestos contamination was a growing concern. "It's an emerging problem and it seems to be growing exponentially as more and more products are brought into Australia because of the wind-down of manufacturing in this country," he said. "What we've really got now is really an indication which could be tip of the iceberg." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mackenzie Council Adopts Disposal Proposal ----------------------------------------------------------- The Timaru Herald reported that the Mackenzie District Council will implement a new method of asbestos disposal. In a report to the council's asset and services committee, solid waste manager Angie Taylor recommended the introduction of a new asbestos disposal site in Twizel, as well as the introduction of Hazibags. Hazibags were specifically designed bags that meet the requirements for safe asbestos packaging, she said. There were no facilities where asbestos could be disposed of in the Mackenzie District, she said. The closest facility was in Timaru. Asbestos was commonly used in building materials in Twizel hydro dwellings and garages, meaning that many homeowners may have small amounts of the material in their home. "Asbestos is currently not accepted in the district and this raises concerns of whether this material is being disposed of appropriately, particularly considering the health risks associated with this material." Taylor recommended the introduction of a collection point for small amounts of asbestos at the Twizel Resource Recovery Park. "Due to the strict regulations regarding handling of asbestos, it is proposed to offer Hazibags, which are designed for containing this material." People would be able to purchase the bags for a set price, which also included transport and disposal costs. Supplying the bags would present no additional cost to the council, apart from education about safe asbestos disposal, she said. "It is questionable whether homeowners are aware of how to identify building materials containing asbestos and this may lead to inappropriate disposal." Larger volumes of asbestos would be managed and taken out of the district for disposal by specialised asbestos removers, she said. Committee members voted unanimously to adopt the recommendation at a meeting on Tuesday. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG, Travelers Not Liable for Claims Payment ------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that units of Travelers Cos. Inc. and American International Group Inc. that had provided excess coverage to a now-bankrupt asbestos manufacturer are not obligated under their policies' terms to provide coverage until primary insurers have paid in full under their policies, says a bankruptcy court. New York-based Rapid-American Corp., which started getting sued for asbestos-related personal injury claims in 1974, settled many of the claims by the time it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2013, but it still had about 275,000 asbestos-related personal injury claims pending against it at the time, according to Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Rapid-American Corp. et al. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. et al. Beginning in 1998, Rapid-American reached settlements with nearly all of its insurers, but a number of them became insolvent and unable to pay the full limits of their policies, according to the ruling. An amount sufficient to reach the level of excess coverage provided under the policies at issue has not been paid, according to the ruling. Rapid-American plaintiffs in the litigation argue the excess policies at issue provide total limits of $64 million, according to the ruling. They contend it is unnecessary for the primary policies' underlying limits to be exhausted by actual payment before the insurers' excess liability coverage attaches. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, however, agreed with the insurers that this was not the case, based on the insurers' policy language. These policies "unambiguously require actual payment before liability attaches," said Judge Bernstein in ruling in the insurers' favor on the issue. Decades after it became a major issue, insurers' ultimate asbestos liability remains unknown, according to a report issued in October 2015 by Oldwick, New Jersey-based rating agency A.M. Best Co. Inc. on asbestos and environmental losses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Union Accused of Hiding Risks at Bakeries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janene Pieters, writing for NL Times, reported that trade union FNV knew for years that commercial bakers were exposed to asbestos that was processed in furnaces, but chose to hide that information, according to television program Zembla. The union vehemently denies these accusations, NOS reports. According to the program, the FNV sector council received a report of a problem with asbestos in an oven of the firm Bakkersland in Wateringen in January 2012. "We also had a major fault with the oven and shut down everything as a precaution, in connection with asbestos. The oven was packed up and the production was moved elsewhere", according to a memo Zembla has in its possession. In July 2013, during an FNV sector council meeting, it was revealed that asbestos was released in more bakeries, including in Zwanenburg and Rotterdam. During this meeting it was said that problems with asbestos in bakery ovens must not come out, according to Zembla. A FNV director also spoke about a confidentiality agreement made with Bakkersland on not revealing the asbestos information. Sources told Zembla that no minutes were taken during this meeting. But one person made their own notes, and these suggested that Bakkersland wanted to keep the situation "under wraps" and that the union helped with a media silence, in an effort not to jeopardize jobs. Wim van der Linden, chairman of the sector council, eventually confirmed the state of affairs to Zembla. The union vehemently denies any sort of cover-up. A spokesperson stated that the sector council decided not to cause unnecessary turmoil. "Immediately after the problems at Bakkersland became known, our manager was on top of it. We requested all reports and had them assessed by an expert. We came to the conclusion that there were no risks to the staff and then decided to give it no further publicity. There was no reason for concern." The Bakkersland staff also received a letter informing them of the asbestos problems in June 2013. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Seeks Answers to Asbestos Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cornish Guardian reported that a Newquay man who was left fighting for breath due to lung disease caused by asbestos exposure tried to take his own life, telling his sister "I can't handle it anymore." Norman Grimshaw, 65, wrote a suicide note to sister Susan Shaw before downing a cocktail of prescription drugs he had been taking to cope with the pain. The retired hotel chef had been diagnosed just six months earlier with asbestosis and pleural plaques which cause scarring and thickening of the lining of his lungs. Following his attempt to overdose he called an ambulance, but died in hospital eight days later. An inquest found his death was caused by respiratory failure as a result of his lungs being damaged by breathing in asbestos dust. Norman was born in Bolton, but grew up in Oldham and went to Counthill Grammar School, after which he completed an apprenticeship in carpentry and joinery at the former Manchester Tech. He was a wood machinist at George Hill timber merchants in Oldham from around 1964 to 1970 then moved to Newquay where he worked as a kitchen porter, for a kitchen fitter's and finally a hotel chef until his death in September 2013. Susan, 56, from Hollins, said: "He told me the workers at George Hill's used to make snowballs with it and throw it at each other. When he came home his clothes were covered in dust. "After he left, he moved to Cornwall and had various jobs in hotels until he retired. He may have been exposed to asbestos in one of those jobs -- I just don't know." The mum-of-two added: "It's tragic. He loved being around people, but he went from being the life and soul of the party to barely being able to leave his flat. "He couldn't breathe, he could no longer manage the stairs. He didn't like burdening people and that's why he tried to kill himself. "It said in his diary he couldn't handle it anymore, that was the last thing he wrote. "I am angry because if the risks were known, he should have been better protected and could have had many more years with us. It's such a waste of life." Simon Alexander, an industrial disease expert from law firm Slater and Gordon, is trying to trace where Norman would have been exposed to the asbestos which led to his death. He said: "Many employers were aware of the potential dangers, but chose to ignore them. Some 30 or 40 years later, their former employees are now paying for those mistakes with their lives. Read next: Murder probe after Newquay mum's two-year-old boy Harry House dies "The last few months of Norman's life would have been painful and desperately sad for a man who loved being out and about and surrounded by his friends. "Susan deserves to know how this happened to her brother so if anyone remembers working with him in places where there was asbestos we would urge them to get in touch." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Inquiry Into Dangers at Bldg Site ----------------------------------------------------------- North Devon Journal reported that campaigners have issued a call for a public inquiry to investigate the development of the former Fremington Army Camp. It comes after concerns were raised over the way potentially asbestos-contaminated material had been handled and transported from the site. During a meeting of Fremington Parish Council on Monday, members of the Yelland Action Group announced its intentions to request a public inquiry into the concerns. In particular, members raised issue with the use of open-top vehicles to transport soil from the site. As a result of the debate, Fremington Parish Council agreed to seek legal advice before making a final decision on whether it will support the calls. Addressing councillors, Peter Cresswell, of the Yelland Action Group, said he was "astonished" at the way the situation has been handled by the developers -- with asbestos being a "well known" issue at the site. "Anybody that was a professional would have known about this," he said. "It should have been insisted that all the hazardous materials be removed from the site before development work commenced and before any buildings were occupied. "Astonishingly, the council allowed the asbestos buildings to be taken apart and left about by workers lacking adequate protective gear and for new residents to come in while the risks were still present." The concerns were shared by most members of the parish council, with district councillor Jacqueline Flynn calling for the parish council to support the calls for a public inquiry. She said: "We are all members of this parish, it affects each and every one of us and I think it's our personal responsibility to raise these issues." Councillor Myka Scott added: "I find it very difficult to understand why people who work in that environment aren't doing their job to the best of their abilities. We must be able to put our trust in other people to deal with the dangers properly." A public meeting will take place on June 22 to address the situation. However, in a joint statement, developers from Barratt Homes and Bovis Homes said: "We continue to go above and beyond what is required in the normal remediation of a site such as this. "We have worked closely with North Devon District Council and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that a robust approach is taken and they have supported our thorough screening programme. "Material movements to and from the site are carried out in line with the soil management protocol approved by them. "The health and safety of our customers, the public and our contractors remains, and will continue to be, an absolute priority as we deliver these much-needed new homes." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Mill Run Facility ---------------------------------------------------- Erich Martin, writing for Levitt Town Now, reported that the work session meeting for Bristol Borough's Council started with a visit from Bob White from the Bucks County Redevelopment Authority (RDA.) White, director of the RDA, spoke in reference to the ongoing Mill Run project. The five-story 77,000-square-foot former medical facility on Wilson Avenue is currently owned by a company that plans to redevelop the building into a mixed-use assisted care facility with other medical offices. According to White, when work was going on to gut the facility, asbestos was discovered in the basement and in the tile binding of the building. Someone reportedly anonymously contacted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to report the asbestos and the project was put on hold until the mess was cleaned up. White informed council and the public that grant applications for cleanup will be filed tomorrow and the work to abate the asbestos will begin quickly. "There's no asbestos in that building that is going to come out and attack anybody," White said. He noted that the problem within the building is tucked away and in no danger of spreading in the air or buildings around Mill Run. Mike Hollister, the attorney for the project, was also at the meeting to report that the proper licenses have been applied for. The building will eventually become an assisted living facility, among other medical services, and requires the associated licenses to do so lawfully. Hollister mentioned that by lining up the licenses early, the building will be ready to accept occupants when the building is finished if all goes according to plan. Last year, the council, school board and county approved granting the facility Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance. The assistance will help limit the taxes paid on the building over the next 10 years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms $10-Mil. Penalty -------------------------------------------------- Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that the 6th Circuit affirms a $10 million penalty and sentence in asbestos case, after refusing to undo a five-year sentence and the restitution payment pinned on a salvage project owner charged with contaminating a decommissioned factory site with asbestos, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency must be paid for the cleanup effort. The project owner, Mike Sawyer, argued that he should not have to pay the $10.4 million in restitution from the government to cover the cleanup cost of the 300-acre plot of land that was contaminated with asbestos, because the district court determined that his Clear Air Act violation was an "offense against property," according to the decision. Sawyer said the EPA cannot be an offense against property as the agency does not own the asbestos-contaminated land. The three-judge panel responded, saying that Sawyer's question was an issue of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, and the published decision on Friday ruled that although the EPA did not outright own the property, it makes sense for the restitution laws to repay the agency after it stepped up to clean the pollution. "[The restitution statute] aims to compensate victims of certain crimes, not only for physical injuries but also for solely economic harm,' the panel wrote. "The district court properly concluded that restitution was mandatory under [the statute] because Sawyer's offense of conviction is a qualifying 'offense against property' and the EPA is an identifiable victim of that offense." A&E was formed by Sawyer and his partners to recover steel, aluminum, copper and other materials from the former Liberty Fibers rayon plant in Tennessee, according to the appeals court. In October 2006 demolition began at the site, but workers reported that the company was not in accordance with standard on-site asbestos procedures. Workers, for example, were not provided with safety equipment, and some workers were asked to remove asbestos without wetting it adequately, according to court papers. The EPA stepped in by August 2008 and entered into a consent agreement with A&E Salvage, in which the company agreed to fix its asbestos violation and follow rules for future asbestos removal and demolition. However, on March 10, 2009, the EPA terminated the agreement and ordered the company, Sawyer and his partners off the property immediately. By the month's end, the EPA took samples, discovering that nearly all of the 300 acres were contaminated with asbestos. Court papers show the agency spent $16,265,418 on cleanup costs, according to court papers. Eventually Sawyer struck a plea deal in which he admitted to violating the Clean Air Act, but he also agreed not to contest his sentencing unless it was over a guidelines range. His 60-month sentence was the maximum for his offense but was well below the lowest sentence length in his guidelines, so when Sawyer sought to appeal it to the Sixth Circuit, the court declined to review the matter. On the matter of restitution, Sawyer argued that not only should he not have to pay it all, but that it was unfair the EPA should assess the entire cost of the cleanup, aside from the attorneys' fees and some other costs, against him when he was not the only member of A&E Salvage charged, court records show. Sawyer said he should instead be assessed an amount based on his specific role in the conspiracy. The appeals court, however, was not persuaded and found he had participated fully in the contamination of the site. "This is not a case where Sawyer agreed to play a minor role in a larger scheme," the panel wrote. "Rather, he fully participated in the fundamental aspects of A&E Salvage's unlawful conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act." Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ********* 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 * * *