/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160621.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 123 Headlines A1 SOLAR POWER: Bell Claims Tossed; Waterbury Claims Survive ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: 2017 Trial Date in King Digital Class Suit ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Defendants' Reply Briefs Due July 1 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTAL: "Henn" Case Goes to Neb. Supreme Court AQUALON: Settles Race Discrimination Class Action for $175,000 ARANGO PA: "Zait" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay BANK OF AMERICA: LD Construction Files Anti-Trust Suit BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces $30MM Penalty for Overcharging FX Trades BEST BUY: "Nunez" Suit Over False Discounts Dismissed BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Case in Early Stages BIRCHMOUNT RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Brookfield Deal BLUE CROSS: Settlement Deal in Shane Group Suit Vacated BNV HOME: "Tkachuk" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay C1 FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action CADIZ INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending CENTURY 21: Faces TCPA Class Action in California CHEMOURS COMPANY: Updates on Drinking Water Actions CITIBANK: Settles Class Action Over Privacy Violations CLUB MED SALES: "Lecorche" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay COMMUNITY BANK: Court Dismissed 2 Related Class Suits DAIRY FARMERS: Dec. 2015 Deal in "Allen" Has Final Okay DARLING CABARET: Must Report Dancers' Names, "Arreaga" Suit Says DOTHAN, AL: Faces Class Action Over Special Judges Appointment DS WATERS: Sept. 29 Final Approval Hearing on "Eddings" Accord DSW INC: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Action in California ERICKSON INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $18.5 Million EZCORP INC: Objections to Discovery Bids Due June 29 in N.Y. Case EZCORP INC: June 22 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit FIRST COMMONWEALTH: To Oppose Class Certification FIRSTMERIT CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Merger Deal FLINT, MI: Hired Law Firm to Investigate Chubb Allegations FONTERRA: Likely to Be in Black This Year, Class Action Ongoing FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Loyalty Rewards Program GENERAL CABLE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over ABACUS 2007-AC1 Stayed Pending Appeal GOLDMAN SACHS: Accords in 2008 and 2010 Suits Have Initial OK GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Force-Placed Insurance Has Initial OK GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Solazyme Securities Case Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: FireEye Securities Litigation Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Cobalt Securities Litigation Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Consolidate Interest Rate Swap Case Filed GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swaps Suit Filed in April 2016 HALYARD HEALTH: Parties in Prime Healthcare Case in Discovery HAMILTONS VALET: "Martins" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay HARTFORD, CT: Hotel Owners Mull Class Action Over Tax Burden HOBART SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in "Alcantar" Under Submission HORTONWORKS INC: Faces Class Action in California HOUSTON GARDEN: Conditional Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Zalewski Litigation INFINITY INSURANCE: Copelan Asks Court to Certify 2 Classes INTEX RECREATION: Class Certification Sought in "Mirescu" Suit IT'S JUST LUNCH: Settles Class Action Over Dating Site KEYS PRODUCTIONS: Collective Action Sought in "Dixon" Suit LAFAYETTE, IN: Class Action Seeks Refunds of Utility Payments LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Still Pending LIN MING-HUI: Survivors of Collapsed Building File Class Action LIVANOVA PLC: To Defend Against Baker Miller Case MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Suits MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Calif. MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Tel Aviv MARIETTA MEMORIAL: "Myers" Plaintiffs Must Submit to Deposition MATTRESS FIRM: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Cortez" Remanded to Sacramento County MDL 1657: 5 Vioxx Product Liability Suits v. Merck Still Active MDL 1657: June 28 Final Approval Hearing on Vioxx Settlement MDL 1789: 4,435 Fosamax Cases v. Merck Pending as of March 31 MDL 2452: 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Claims Served as of March 31 MDL 2481: Class Cert. Ruling Expected by Mid-October 2016 MEDICAL REVIEW: "Walpole" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MERCK & CO: 20 Femur Fracture Cases Pending as of March 31 MERCK & CO: 3,040 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in N.J. MERCK & CO: 300 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in Calif. MERCK & CO: 1,385 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed as of March 31 MERCK & CO: Court Granted Bid to Amend Sales Force Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Dismisses FDCPA Class Action MINOR LEAGUE: February 2017 Trial Scheduled for Class Action MISSOURI: Mo. Ct. App. Rules on "Poger" Appeal NEWELL BRANDS: Must Update Court on Case Status by June 30 NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NINE ENERGY: "Sams" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NORTHERN MONTANA RETIREMENT: "Cleary" Seeks Payment of Benefits PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiff Had Until June 7 to Appeal Ruling PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set PICKVEST: Investors Reject Class Action Settlement Offer PITTSBURGH GLASS: Seeks Dismissal of Age Discrimination Claims PLY GEM: Updates on Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement PLY GEM: Petition for Appeal in "Pagliaroni" Case Denied PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Underway PLY GEM: Damages in "Carrillo-Hueso" Suit Not Yet Quantified PLY GEM: Damages in "Morgan" Suit Not Yet Quantified PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Obtained Summary Judgment in "Ciganek" PRIDE TRANSPORT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action QUALITY CONSULTING: "Todd" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay RED RABBIT: "Torres" Seeks to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay RP FIELD: Representative Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT ROFIN-SINAR: Faces Merger-Related Litigation in Michigan ROTUNDA CONDOMINIUMS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Reyes" Suit RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Must Face Misdemeanor Probationers' Suit SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Suit Stayed Against Non-Debtors SELECT COMFORT: "Azimpour" Class Action Pending SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: No Motion to Certify Class Filed SKULLCANDY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate 2 Complaints SURFSTITCH: Melbourne Law Firm Mulls Shareholder Class Action SHELL OIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SOTHEBY'S: "Graham" Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal SPIRIT AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Credit Card Data Risk STERICYCLE INC: Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Settlement Conference Scheduled in May TACO BELL: Expert's Analysis on Fee Award Critical, Court Says TEAM HEALTH: Opposition to Fee Application Due June 30 TELEXFREE INC: Scam Participants Ordered to Return Money THERANOS INC: Walgreens Ends Partnership Amid Class Actions TILE SHOP: Court Rules on Discovery in Retirement Fund Suit TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Set for July 27 TRACY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Zolandz" Suit TRUMP UNIVERSITY: June 30 Hearing Set on Video Depositions UNITED RECOVERY: July 26 Initial Status Hearing Set in "Hurt" UNITED SERVICES: Class-Action Sanctions to Impact Other Cases UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Sought in "Johnson" Case v. Treasury UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Loses Bid to Moot TCPA Class Action UTZ QUALITY: Claims "Natural" Food Labeling Suits Lawyer-Driven VITAL THERAPIES: Response to Amended Suit Due July 1 WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Dismissed Two Merger Class Suits XPO LOGISTICS: To Pay $235,000 in Plaintiff Counsel Fees WAYFAIR INC: "Dingee" Class Suit Dismissed WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Carson" Class Suit in C.D. Calif. WESTLAKE FINANCIAL: Settles Robocall Class Action WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces ERISA Class Action in Oregon WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Conference Held in "Reyes" * Education Dep't Proposes New Rules Following College Fraud * High Court Rulings to Impact ERISA, Securities Class Actions * Therium Mulls Class Action Against Closet Indexers in Europe ********* A1 SOLAR POWER: Bell Claims Tossed; Waterbury Claims Survive ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned STEVE WATERBURY; and KATHY BELL; Plaintiffs, v. A1 SOLAR POWER INC.; and AMERICAN PRO ENERGY; Defendants, Case No. 15cv2374-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anelo granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The judge ruled as follows: -- As to plaintiff Kathy Bell's claims, the motion to dismiss was granted and Bell's claims were dismissed without prejudice. -- As to plaintiff Steve Waterbury's claims, the motion to dismiss was denied. -- The defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' class definitions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) was denied. -- The defendants' motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e) was denied. Judge Anelo also granted the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the complaint as to claims that were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs were given 14 days within which to file a Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Anelo's June 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/v1KtQV from Leagle.com. The putative class action was filed by the plaintiffs on October 20, 2015 against A1 Solar Power Inc. and American Pro Energy. On November 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint, alleging the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Steve Waterbury, Kathy Bell, Plaintiffs, represented by John Peter Kristensen, Kristensen Law Group. A1 Solar Power Inc., American Pro Energy, Defendants, represented by David Robert Socher -- david@drsocher.com -- David R. Socher, Attorney at Law, PC. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: 2017 Trial Date in King Digital Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Activision Blizzard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has set a trial date of May 1, 2017, in the class action related to the King Initial Public Offering. On November 2, 2015, Activision and King Digital Entertainment plc ("King"), an interactive mobile entertainment company, entered into a Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") under the terms of which Activision would acquire King (the "King Acquisition") and King would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. On February 23, 2016, Activision completed the King Acquisition. Beginning on March 17, 2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, against King, certain of its directors and executive officers and underwriters of the King IPO. The lawsuits were brought by purported shareholders of King seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the King IPO. The lawsuits were consolidated. Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. The court has set a trial date of May 1, 2017. The Company has not recorded a liability in relation to these lawsuits and believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is awaiting the court's decision on the motion to dismiss the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al. On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC, Mr. Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen, including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. "On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 3, 2015, and we are awaiting a decision from the court on the motion," the Company said. "We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any." ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Defendants' Reply Briefs Due July 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al., defendants are required to file any reply briefs to the plaintiffs' response on or before July 1, 2016. The Company said, "On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses." "In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff. "On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Our motion to dismiss the amended complaint was due on March 22, 2016. "On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs are required to file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss on or before May 20, 2016, and the defendants are required to file any reply briefs to the plaintiffs' response on or before July 1, 2016. "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any." Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland REIT focused on acquiring, owning and managing single-family rental properties throughout the United States. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTAL: "Henn" Case Goes to Neb. Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ROSEMARY HENN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 8:15CV257 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon certified the following question of law to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska: "May an insurer, in determining the "actual cash value" of a covered loss, depreciate the cost of labor when the terms "actual cash value" and "depreciation" are not defined in the policy and the policy does not explicitly state that labor costs will be depreciated?" A full-text copy of Judge Bataillon's June 7, 2016 certificate is available at https://is.gd/4FMNrd from Leagle.com. In the putative class action, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of insureds whose payments for "actual cash value" were reduced by American Family Mutual Insurance Company through depreciation of costs for labor from June 1, 2005 through the date of trial of the action. Rosemary Henn, Plaintiff, represented by Eric R. Chandler, LAW OFFICE OF ERIC R. CHANDLER, Erik D. Peterson, MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, M. Austin Mehr, MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Philip G. Fairbanks, MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Bartholomew L. McLeay -- bart.mcleay@kutakrock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM, Brooke H. McCarthy -- brooke.mccarthy@kutakrock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Michael S. McCarthy -- michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com -- FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM. AQUALON: Settles Race Discrimination Class Action for $175,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Fatima Hussein, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that a subsidiary of Covington-based specialty chemical company Ashland agreed to pay $175,000 to more than 660 African-American job applicants who claimed the subsidiary engaged in race bias in hiring. The class of job applicants claimed that Aqualon, a company that develops liquid thickening compounds, used a hiring test that has a discriminatory impact on black applicants, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Job seekers applied for entry-level transition operator positions at the company's Hopewell, Virginia plant between October 2011 and September 2012. The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found statistically significant disparities in the hiring of black and white applicants for the same entry-level positions. Aqualon disputes the statistical findings and denies any wrongdoing or unlawful conduct. The agency claimed that Aqualon didn't establish that the hiring test, known as WorkKeys, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. The company said the claim was moot because the job for which the test was used no longer exists. Aqualon said it had already hired four of the rejected black applicants. "We made a business decision to bring to an end a costly three- year-old audit," said Ashland's attorney, Colleen Lewis, a lawyer with Dinsmore & Shohl in Downtown Cincinnati, in a statement. "The company is pleased to conclude this matter and is committed to being an equal employment opportunity employer that values diversity and inclusion." The settlement was the second by the agency in the past month involving a federal contractor's use of an allegedly invalidated hiring test. ARANGO PA: "Zait" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------- Eliangela Zait, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Claudia G. Arango, MD, P.A., a Florida professional association, and Claudia G. Arango, M.D., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22056-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney fees for willful violations of overtime pay provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant owns and/or operates a medical practice where the Plaintiff was employed as an office staff. Zait claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A. 20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (786) 923-5899 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. Mamane Law LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone 305-773-6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com BANK OF AMERICA: LD Construction Files Anti-Trust Suit ------------------------------------------------------ LD Construction LLC, LDLJ Associates, L.P., Lawrence W. Gardner, and David Gardner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 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-04239 (S.D. N.Y., June 7, 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. Defendants purchased swaps directly from defendant Citibank, N.A. and allege that they are unable to participate in exchange trading of swaps due to the anti-competitive suppression of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason A. Zweig, Esq. 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-752-5455 Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-623-7292 Facsimile: 206-623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces $30MM Penalty for Overcharging FX Trades ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shreya Agarwal, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Bank of New York Mellon will pay a $30 million penalty after the SEC found over a decade of violations in its foreign exchange business. According to the SEC, from at least 2000 to 2011, the BNY misled and overcharged some clients in its "Standing Instructions" program. Under the program, the bank offered to "automatically process and execute the clients' FX trades without supervision" or direct involvement from clients. The bank explicitly promised to execute these trades according to the "best execution" standards and at the "best rates" to maximize the proceeds on the foreign exchange trades. Instead, the SEC says, BNY used the program as an opportunity to earn more on each transaction by executing the trades at the highest reported interbank rate for the day if the client was buying the foreign currency, and at the lowest if the client was selling currency. The bank would then send the summary of transactions to clients including the date of each transaction and the rate assigned by the bank, while leaving out the transaction timestamp and the how the specific rate was assigned, the documents say. "We are pleased to put these legacy FX matters behind us, which was in the best interest of our company and our constituents," Colleen Anne Krieger, a spokeswoman for the bank, said. In 2015, Bank agreed to pay $714 million to settle the foreign exchange issue, out of which, DOJ and New York State would receive $167.5 million each, and $335 million will go to settle the customer class action litigation. According to the SEC, the Standing Instruction service was bank's most profitable FX product as its sales margins were generally "substantially" higher than on the FX transactions in the same currencies, in which the clients negotiated for the best price for themselves. BEST BUY: "Nunez" Suit Over False Discounts Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Randy Nunez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendants, Civil No. 15-3965 (DWF/SER) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The putative class action was filed by Randy Nunez against Best Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. after Nunez purchased a microwave from a Best Buy store in San Diego, California. Nunez alleged that he purchased the microwave based on his belief that Best Buy had discounted its price. But, Nunez claimed, Best Buy was in fact engaging in deceptive advertising by misrepresenting the "regular" price of the microwave. He alleged that this misrepresentation was part of a broad scheme of fraudulent price advertising that Best Buy implemented from its corporate offices in Richfield, Minnesota, in violation of various Minnesota and California laws. Judge Frank found that the First Amended Complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Frank's June 7, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/LAUC79 from Leagle.com. Randy Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Kirksey Wood, Jr., Wood Law Firm, LLC, pro hac vice, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, pro hac vice, Eric N Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Erin Green Comite, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph P Guglielmo, pro hac vice, Karen Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendants, represented by Anne M Lockner -- alockner@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Michael A Geibelson -- mgeibelson@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Seth A Nielsen -- snielsen@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP. BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Case in Early Stages -------------------------------------------- Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 24, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other related Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff. The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class of comprised of other dentists who received the same or similar faxes from BIOLASE. BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14, 2016, and denied liability on all claims. BIOLASE also denies that class certification is appropriate. The case is still in its early stages and no discovery or substantive motion practice has yet been conducted. BIOLASE, Inc. is a medical device company that develops, manufactures, markets, and sells laser systems in dentistry and medicine and also markets, sells, and distributes dental imaging equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra- oral scanners, in-office, chair-side milling machines and three- dimensional ("3-D") printers. BIRCHMOUNT RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Over Brookfield Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that the class-action lawsuit filed by a team of shareholders of Birchmount Resources Ltd., with Hockey Hall-of-Famer Lanny McDonald as its representative plaintiff, was set to be back in court in Calgary on June 15. The lawsuit alleges Brookfield Asset Management acquired Birchmount's Hammerstone MegaQuarry using oppressive and misleading tactics, usurping shareholders and leaving them with nothing. BLUE CROSS: Settlement Deal in Shane Group Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant- Appellee, CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS (15-1544); ADAC AUTOMOTIVE, et al. (15-1551); SCOTT MANCINELLI (15-1552), Objectors-Appellants, Nos. 15-1544, 1551, 1552 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order approving the settlement agreement, as well as the orders sealing documents in the court record. The case was remanded for an open and vigorous examination of the settlement's fairness to the class. The Sixth Circuit held that the class action, which is based on credible allegations that Michigan's largest health insurer -- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan -- engaged in price-fixing to the detriment of millions of Michigan citizens, is a case in which the public has a keen and legitimate interest. The Sixth Circuit thus found that the district court abused its discretion when it sealed most of the parties' substantive filings from public view, including 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. "Class members who sought to object to the proposed settlement thus had no ability to examine the bases of what they were objecting to. To compound matters, the district court then approved the settlement without meaningful scrutiny of the settlement's fairness to unnamed members of the class," the Sixth Circuit said. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 7, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/J4yKl4 from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Bryan R. Walters -- brwalters@varnumlaw.com -- VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for ADAC Appellants. Daniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Shane Group Appellees. Constantine L. Trela, Jr. -- ctrela@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee Blue Cross. ON BRIEF: Bryan R. Walters, Perrin Rynders -- prynders@varnumlaw.com -- VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for ADAC Appellants. Daniel A. Small, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C., E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester, Michigan, for Shane Group Appellees. Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Tacy F. Flint, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Jennifer J. Clark -- jennifer.clark@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Blue Cross. BNV HOME: "Tkachuk" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ Oleg K. Tkachuk, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BNV Home Care Services, Inc., a/k/a BNV Home Care Agency, Inc., a/k/a BNV Home Care Services, Inc. (BKLYN) and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02929 (E.D. N.Y., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay as well as liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendant provides home healthcare services in New York City where Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health aide worker. Tkachuk claims to be denied overtime pay and wage statements. Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Tel: (718) 339-0856 C1 FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------ C1 Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties to the merger class action lawsuit have entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"). On November 9, 2015, C1 Financial and its wholly owned bank subsidiary, C1 Bank, entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger ("Agreement") with Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. ("OZRK") and its wholly owned bank subsidiary, Bank of the Ozarks ("Ozarks Bank"), whereby, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, C1 Financial will merge with and into OZRK with OZRK surviving the merger in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $402.5 million, or approximately $25.00 per share of C1 Financial common stock, subject to potential adjustments as described in the Agreement. The Company said, "As previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, following the announcement of the merger with OZRK, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of the Sixth Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida (the "Court") against C1 Financial and the individual members of C1 Financial's board of directors, and OZRK (the "Action"). The Action generally alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the individual directors of C1 Financial and also alleges that C1 Financial and OZRK have aided and abetted the C1 Financial board members' breaches of their fiduciary duties. On January 22, 2016, the plaintiff in the Action filed an amended complaint adding, among other things, allegations of material misstatements and omissions concerning the content of the preliminary Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by OZRK on January 5, 2016. The Action requests, among other things, that the Merger be enjoined." "On February 22, 2016, the parties to the Action entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions, to settle the Action. Pursuant to the MOU, and without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be made, defendants agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by plaintiffs in the Action. The MOU further provides that, among other things, (a) after the completion of reasonable confirmatory discovery the parties will negotiate a definitive stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Action with prejudice; (c) the Stipulation will include a general release of defendants of claims relating to, among other things, the Merger and the Merger Agreement; and (d) the settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the Merger, class certification and final approval by the Court after notice to C1 Financial's shareholders. "Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the litigation are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval, intend to defend them vigorously. Defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will not affect the timing of the Merger or the amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger." CADIZ INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Cadiz Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on April 24, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was filed against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers ("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purporting to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Company's public disclosures were inadequate in relation to the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the "Water Project"). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit and Cadiz intends to vigorously defend against the action. On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016. The Judge has not yet issued a ruling and the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of this proceeding. CENTURY 21: Faces TCPA Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------- Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California woman who alleges she received several unsolicited sales calls from Century 21 Real Estate, despite her number being listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, has filed a lawsuit against the company. James Tuthill, an attorney specializing in telecom and who has taught telecommunications law at UC Berkeley School of Law, said this case is a good example of how violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act have become all too common for consumers. "Everyone knows that violations of the federal Do Not Call law have become commonplace. The violations are flagrant, repeated and daily intrusions into the lives of millions of Americans," Mr. Tuthill told Legal Newsline. "For far too long, the federal regulators charged with enforcement of the law have ignored and refused to fulfill their responsibility and hold open and notorious perpetrators accountable. This lawsuit is a welcome challenge to these everyday violations which for far too long have been permitted," said Mr. Tuthill. Carolyn Navarro filed the class action suit in Los Angeles federal court against Century 21 Real Estate LLC. Ms. Navarro and others in the suit are requesting $500 in statutory damages in the first cause of action for "negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act." In the second cause of action, "knowing and/or willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act," up to $1,500 for each violation is being sought, according to the suit. In the suit, Ms. Navarro claims that beginning in November, Century 21 contacted her home phone number, a number she had registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, in an effort to sell her the company's real estate services. Ms. Navarro alleges in the suit that she received several calls and did not give written consent prior to receiving the calls. Navarro also states she did not have an established business relationship with the company at the time of the calls nor were the calls made for emergency purposes. The suit also claims that Ms. Navarro repeatedly requested the calls to stop and that she contacted Century 21 in writing, asking to be removed from the company's call list. "There is a lot of TCPA litigation out there both because people find the calls annoying and because there are statutory damages for certain types of calling," Chris Hoofnagle, adjunct professor of Law and Faculty Director at the University of California Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, told Legal Newsline. Mr. Hoofnagle is also author of "Federal Trade Commission Privacy Law and Policy" and is licensed to practice law in California and Washington, D.C. "For me what is interesting about the case is the idea that in order for a consumer to investigate this kind of case, they have to get to discovery," he said. "The plaintiff suspects that she has been called by the same people from a bunch of different phone numbers. The only way to verify this is to get to discovery or to have some kind of law enforcement-style investigation, which is out of the reach of ordinary consumers." CHEMOURS COMPANY: Updates on Drinking Water Actions --------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acids (PFOA) in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account. As of March 31, 2016, less than $1 million has been disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring. In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA) and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At March 31, 2016, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court. Based on the information currently available to the Company, the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 30 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In the third quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. The first case (Bartlett v. DuPont) was tried to a verdict on October 7, 2015. The Plaintiff alleged that PFOA in drinking water caused her kidney cancer with causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding $1.1 million in damages for negligence and $0.5 million for emotional distress. The jury found that DuPont's conduct did not warrant punitive damages. DuPont Management believes that rulings made before and during the trial resulted in several significant and meritorious grounds for appeal, and has filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit. The second case (Wolf v. DuPont), set for trial in March 2016, has been settled for an amount well below the incremental cost of preparing for trial. There are three more trials scheduled in 2016, with the next trial starting in May 2016. The court announced that, starting in May 2017, 40 individual plaintiff trials will be scheduled per year. This multi-year plan pertains only to the cases claiming cancer, which represents approximately 7% of the total number of cases in the MDL. The remaining cases, comprising approximately 93% of the docket, will remain inactive. Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. Except for the Wolf v. DuPont case, no claims have been settled or resolved during the periods presented. CITIBANK: Settles Class Action Over Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports another settlement involves customers calling into CitiBank. "You know, you call to 800 numbers, it says calls can be recorded for quality control. In this case, that wasn't on there," hardy says that's the allegation. The company is accused of not informing customers that they were being recorded, which would be a privacy violation. There's a small window -- parts of April and May of 2013. But a it's big settlement: between $350 and $2,500 each. CLUB MED SALES: "Lecorche" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Herve Jean-Paul Lecorche, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Club Med Sales, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22078-UU (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with offices in Miami-Dade County. Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: 305-403-2000 Facsimile: 305-459-3964 E-Mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com COMMUNITY BANK: Court Dismissed 2 Related Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order of final judgment and dismissal on March 31, 2016, granting final approval of the settlement reached in the two related class actions, which were commenced on October 30, 2013 and May 23, 2014, respectively. The two related cases alleged, on behalf of similarly situated class members, that notices provided by the Bank in connection with the repossession of automobiles failed to comply with certain requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial Code and related statutes. The settlement, which was resolved through mediation in September 2014, provides for establishment of a settlement fund of $2.8 million in exchange for release of all claims of the class members covered by these actions. The litigation settlement charge of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement of the class actions was previously recorded in the third quarter of 2014. DAIRY FARMERS: Dec. 2015 Deal in "Allen" Has Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ALICE H. ALLEN, LAURANCE E. ALLEN, d/b/a Al- lens Farm, GARRET SITTS, RALPH SITTS, JONATHAN HAAR, CLAUDIA HAAR, RICHARD SWANTAK, PETER SOUTHWAY, MARILYN SOUTHWAY, REYNARD HUNT, ROBERT FULPER, STEPHEN H. TAYLOR, and DARREL J. AUBERTINE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. and DAIRY MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:09-cv-230 (D. Vt.), Judge Christina Reiss granted the parties' motion for final approval of their December 2015 proposed settlement. The proposed settlement was between the defendants Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA) and Dairy Marketing Services, LLC (DMS) and the DFA/DMS and non-DFA/DMS subclasses (collectively, the "Dairy Farmers Class"). The Dairy Farmers Class is comprised of dairy farmers who produced and sold raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk Market Order 1 between January 1, 2002 to the present. Defendant DFA is a dairy cooperative that produces, processes, and distributes raw Grade A milk. Defendant DMS is a milk-marketing agency that was formed in 1999 by DFA and Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. and is currently owned by DFA, Dairylea, and St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, Inc. Pursuant to the December 2015 proposed settlement, without an admission of wrongdoing, the defendants have agreed to pay $50 million dollars to the Dairy Farmers Class in exchange for a release of the claims asserted in this action as well as claims "arising out of the conduct alleged in the Complaint" as to specified released parties. The defendants have agreed to non- retaliation safeguards for the Dairy Farmers Class; specific protocols to increase class members' ability to leave DFA/DMS without penalty; the provision of a milk marketing grace period in the event a dairy farm is terminated from DFA/DMS; disclosure of certain financial information; and a prohibition of non- solicitation agreements, which allegedly prevented class members from freely leaving their cooperatives and joining competing cooperatives. A full-text copy of Judge Reiss' June 7, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/kBnGPx from Leagle.com. Alice H. Allen, Laurance E. Allen, Garret Sitts, Ralph Sitts, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq. -- amanitsky@lynnlawvt.com -- Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C., Brent W. Johnson, Esq. -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Danyll W. Foix, Esq. - - dfoix@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Emily J. Joselson, Esq. -- ejoselson@langrock.com -- Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Gregory J. Commins, Jr. -- gcommins@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Kit A. Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Lisa B. Shelkrot, Esq. -- lshelkrot@langrock.com -- Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Robert G. Abrams, Esq. -- rabrams@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Robert J. Brookhiser, Esq. -- rbrookhiser@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & Terry L. Sullivan, Esq. -- tsullivan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP. Jonathan Haar, Claudia Haar, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C., Benjamin D. Brown, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A. Small, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, David A. Balto, Esq., The Law Offices of David A. Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, George F. Farah, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice. Richard Swantak, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C. & Benjamin D. Brown, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Danyll W. Foix, Esq., Baker & Hostetler LLP, David A. Balto, Esq., The Law Offices of David A. Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Robert G. Abrams, Esq., Baker & Hostetler LLP. Peter Southway, Marilyn Southway, Reynard Hunt, Robert Fulper, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, P.C. & Benjamin D. Brown, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel A. Small, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, David A. Balto, Esq., The Law Offices of David A. Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, George F. Farah, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Stephen H. Taylor, Darrel J. Aubertine, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel J. Smith, Northeast Dairy Compact Commission & Richard T. Cassidy, Esq., Hoff Curtis. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dairy Marketing Services, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amber L. McDonald, Esq, Baker & Miller PLLC, pro hac vice, Carl R. Metz, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Ian P. Carleton, Esq., Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Hardy, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Collogan, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, R. Jeffrey Behm, Esq., Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Steven R. Kuney, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Esq., Baker & Miller PLLC. Vermont Attorney General's Office, Amicus, represented by Ryan G. Kriger, Esq., Vermont Office of the Attorney General. DARLING CABARET: Must Report Dancers' Names, "Arreaga" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled ADRIANNA ARREAGAS, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DARLING CABARET, LLC D/B/A THE RED LEOPARD, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00495-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff requests that this Court: (1) adopt the attached "Consent Notice to Become Party Plaintiff; and (2) order Defendant to disclose to Plaintiff the names and last known mailing addresses of all persons that danced as exotic entertainers at The Red Leopard in Satellite Beach, Florida at any time during a three-year period before the Complaint was filed within 20 days of the Court's Order permitting this case to proceed as a collective action. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated exotic entertainers for the Defendant share common questions of law and fact that binds them together as victims of Defendant's illegal policy and practice of refusing to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CQdSehG3 The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam B. Kenner, Esq. KENNER & CUMMINGS, PLLC 175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 384 7370 Facsimile: (305) 384 7371 E-mail: Adam@Kennercummings.com DOTHAN, AL: Faces Class Action Over Special Judges Appointment -------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reports that according to a class action lawsuit filed on June 13 by a local bondsman, the City of Dothan has failed to follow state law when appointing special municipal judges, calling into question the resolution of a significant number of cases heard by the judges. The suit was filed on June 13 in U.S. District Court by Rickey Stokes, who was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in September of 2014 by special appointed judge Carl Chamblee, Jr. According to the suit, the city's mayor is the only person authorized to appoint special municipal judges, who are appointed to hear cases when the local municipal judge recuses herself due to an absence, conflict of interest or other reasons. For many years -- no one is sure how long -- the city manager has been authorized to make the appointment in lieu of the mayor. "By Dothan's own admission, and under Alabama law generally, any actions taken or orders entered by a Special Municipal Judge which has not been properly appointed . . . are void ab initio," states the suit, filed on behalf of Stokes by Dothan attorneys Derek Yarbrough and Stephen Etheredge. Ab initio is a legal term that means "from the beginning." The suit argues the city is liable for anything that happened to defendants after the alleged unlawful appointment of a special judge, including confinement, fees, fines, drug and alcohol treatment which incurred additional costs, appeal costs and other costs. "Because the special municipal judges lacked any jurisdiction and their orders were and are void, the fees and fines assessed pursuant to their orders, all probation fees assessed pursuant to their probation orders, and all amounts necessary to effect appeals of their orders . . . were and are illegal deprivations of property effected under color of state law," the suit states. "Further, any members who have served time in custodial confinement were unlawfully deprived of their liberty under color of state law." The suit seeks damages including costs incurred by the potential defendants in defending the case, fines and fees paid, and asks the court to determine the city's financial liability for defendants who were confined. The class action suit only includes potential members who paid fines, incurred other costs or were confined in Dothan due to the orders of a special municipal judge since June 13, 2014, when Chamblee was appointed to hear the case involving Stokes. City Manager Mike West said he did not know how long the practice of allowing the city manager to appoint in lieu of the mayor has existed, but it has been in place since at least late 2004, when he arrived. When there is a need for a special appointed Judge, the local municipal judge uses a city-created form. The local judge nominates, or suggests a special appointed judge, and signs the form. It is then submitted to city administration. There are signature places for the mayor and city manager at the bottom of the page, but there is language on the form that indicates West can sign off on the appointment in lieu of the mayor according to Title 12, Section 14-34 of the Alabama Code. However, the code section does not authorize anyone other than the mayor to make the appointment. The section reads: "In the event of the absence from the municipality, death, disability of disqualification of a municipal judge for any reason, the mayor of the municipality shall have the authority to designate a person, licensed to practice law in the state and a qualified elector of the state, not otherwise employed in any capacity by the municipality, to serve as acting municipal judge with all power and authority of a duly appointed municipal judge." City Manager Mike West said on June 13 that the city has already changed its procedure regarding special municipal judges and has filed a motion to remand Stokes' case back to municipal court. Stokes' appeal of his 2014 conviction was scheduled to be heard in Houston County Circuit Court. "Obviously the city will comply with what the rules are," Mr. West said. "There was nothing to give me any indication, or that would have led me to believe that this was something improper. Someone sends me over a form that looks official, it quotes statutes and it says I sign in lieu of the mayor. There was no need to question that." "There is no reason to think the appointments would have been any different," Mr. West said. Mr. West said he has not seen the class action suit filed on June 13 and could not respond to the legal ramifications. "That is up to the attorneys and the courts," he said. It is not known how many cases this could affect. District 2 Commissioner Amos Newsome was convicted of misdemeanor assault by a special municipal judge in April. He has appealed the conviction. Once the City of Dothan is officially served, it will have several days to respond in U.S. District Court. DS WATERS: Sept. 29 Final Approval Hearing on "Eddings" Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. Vince Chhabria entered order in class action lawsuit styled CHRIS EDDINGS, KENDALL HEATH, and LINO GONZALEZ, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02576-VC (N.D. Cal.), granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement reached by the parties, and granting provisional certification of the settlement class. Accordingly, for purposes of settlement only, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals who worked as Costco Sales Representatives for DS Services of America, Inc. (DSS) at any Costco location in California from February 19, 2011, through preliminary approval of the Settlement (Class Members)." The Court appoints Christopher Eddings, Kendall Heath, and Lino Gonzalez as the Class Representatives. The Court appoints Alexander Krakow + Glick LLP, Kyle Todd of the Law Offices of Kyle Todd, and Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz, as Class Counsel. Michael Morrison is appointed as Lead Class Counsel. Simpluris, Inc., is appointed as the Claims Administrator. A hearing shall be held on Sept. 29, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and whether it should be approved finally by the Court. The hearing may be postponed, adjourned, or rescheduled by order of the Court without further notice to the class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZLu2c5YH The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Todd, Esq. Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: 323 208 9171 E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com - and - Michael S. Morrison, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 The Defendant is represented by: Catherine M. Dacre, Esq. Justin T. Curley, Esq. Emily E. Barker, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2930 Telephone: (415) 397 2823 Facsimile: (415) 397 8549 E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com jcurley@seyfarth.com ebarker@seyfarth.com DSW INC: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hadley, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California woman is suing an shoe retailer claiming it used deceptive and misleading advertising to market the exclusive merchandise it sells online and in its stores. Amy Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 31 against DSW Inc., alleging violation of unfair competition laws and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, DSW intentionally misrepresents prices for products manufactured and sold exclusively for it, claiming they are steeply discounted. However, the suit claims the discounts are misleading because the products are only sold at DSW and never for the alleged suggested retail prices. Ms. Evans seeks a jury trial, restitution for damages and disgorgement of unjust enrichment. She is represented by four attorneys from Tycko & Zavareei: Kristen Law Sagafi and Martin D. Quinones in Oakland, and Hassan A. Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel in Washington, D.C. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:16-cv-03791 ERICKSON INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $18.5 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports that Portland aviation company Erickson Inc. and the private equity company that controls it have tentatively agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle a shareholder's class-action lawsuit, according to court documents. Edward Montgomery, an Erickson pilot and shareholder, in 2014 sued his company alleging the Erickson board breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders when it OK'ed Erickson's 2013 acquisition of Evergreen Helicopters. Mr. Montgomery claims the Evergreen acquisition was a thinly disguised bailout of ZM Private Equity, Erickson's largest shareholder. Mr. Montgomery claimed Quinn Morgan, then Erickson's chairman and the head of ZM, personally negotiated the deal to ensure ZM got repaid the $62 million it was owed by Evergreen. "ZM Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by using Erickson for their own personal benefit to the detriment of Erickson's minority stockholders," Mr. Montgomery claimed. The Evergreen deal has proven disastrous for Erickson, burdening the company with a crushing load of $355 million in debt. Erickson's stock has collapsed below $1 a share in recent weeks as it struggles through business setbacks and a mounting liquidity crisis. Most of the $18.5 million settlement will be divvied up among shareholders who held Erickson shares between March 18, 2013 and June 16. It is not nearly enough to cover the loss of value suffered by shareholders as the stock Shareholders have taken a beating. Erickson's stock closed on June 13 at 76 cents, down from $19.03 a share when Montgomery filed his suit. The case was set to go trial in August. Erickson, which has denied any wrongdoing, declined comment Written into the settlement are new limits on Erickson's ability to conduct major corporate purchases or sales, particularly transactions that involve ZM. Erickson will have to get approval of a committee of independent Erickson boardmembers before it moves ahead, according to the settlement document. The settlement must be approved by a judge, which probably won't happen until early fall. The 800-employee company announced it had hired an investment banking firm to advise it on a possible restructuring. Jeff Roberts, the company's chief executive, acknowledged the company has too much debt and not enough liquidity. EZCORP INC: Objections to Discovery Bids Due June 29 in N.Y. Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv- 06834 (S.D.N.Y.), an Initial Pretrial Conference was held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on June 8, 2016. Status conference is scheduled for July 22 at 9 a.m. Plaintiff's class action discovery request was due June 15. Parties' class action Rule 26(a) information, and objections to discovery request are due June 29. Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's class discovery request are due July 15. "It is not a basis to object to class related discovery that it also is relevant to the merits. Parties to exchange outlines of their positions for and against class certification so as to identify what discovery is needed for class certification motion & opposition. Parties to cooperate re class discovery. Remainder of schedule to be set at next conf," according to a Minute Entry in the case. EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel (our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer and former chief operating officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's business units and investments were not performing as well as represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and activities. On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 26, 2015, appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 12, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that: * EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. (Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history; * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it; * EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and * Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's alleged false and misleading statements and omissions. On April 27 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the parties submitted their respective supporting and opposing briefs. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, it dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims insofar as they were based on (1) the alleged misstatements about the nature of and approval process related to the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park, (2) the alleged misstatements regarding the impairment of the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond, and (3) some of the alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims survived the motions to dismiss insofar as they were based on certain alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 20(a) claims also survived the motions to dismiss. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company said. EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas. It is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico. EZCORP INC: June 22 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00608 (W.D. Tex.), Judge Sam Sparks will hold a hearing for June 22, 2016, on the motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The Company said, "The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business." "On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these 2 lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. "On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel. On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2015 and October 20, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants' reply was due on May 11, 2016. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company said. EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas. It is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico. FIRST COMMONWEALTH: To Oppose Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to oppose class certification. First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015 by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees, including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to oppose class certification. The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as representatives of the putative class. FIRSTMERIT CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Betty Lin-Fisher, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that the shareholders of both FirstMerit Corp. and Huntington Bancshares have approved the proposed merger of the two banks. In separate special meetings on June 13, held in Akron and Columbus, shareholders approved the merger, the banks said in a joint statement. Columbus-based Huntington is acquiring FirstMerit in a $3.4 billion stock and cash deal that is expected to be completed in the third quarter of this year. The proposed merger still needs approval from federal regulators. "[June 13] marks an important milestone as we continue to proceed smoothly with the merger process of combining Huntington and FirstMerit," said Stephen D. Steinour, chairman, president and CEO of Huntington, in the news release. "I am delighted that Huntington shareholders reacted positively to the opportunity that this partnership creates for the future combined company, and am looking forward to FirstMerit shareholders becoming Huntington shareholders when the merger is complete." "We are pleased that our shareholders overwhelmingly support the merger with Huntington and what it means for the markets we serve," said Paul G. Greig, chairman, president and CEO of FirstMerit. "I look forward to working with Huntington as our two companies combine the best of both organizations to create a stronger, market-leading regional bank for our customers and employees." In other news, both banks and their directors reached an agreement to settle a class-action suit by shareholders looking to block the proposed merger. Terms of the agreement were not available and there are still other pending class-action suits. A University of Akron law professor has said that lawsuits seeking to block mergers are commonplace. FLINT, MI: Hired Law Firm to Investigate Chubb Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------- Gary Ridley, writing for MLive-The Flint Journal, reports that the city of Flint agreed to pay up to $5,000 to an outside law firm to investigate allegations made by former Interim City Attorney Anthony Chubb. Documents obtained by Mlive-The Flint Journal through the Freedom of Information Act show City Attorney Stacy Erwin Oakes hired law firm Foley & Lardner in March to represent the city, investigate and respond to the allegations made by Mr. Chubb. The documents do not outline the allegations and Mr. Chubb, who resigned from the city effective June 10, declined to comment on the situation. The city has not yet responded to a Flint Journal FOIA request seeking details of Mr. Chubb's claims. The contract, signed by Erwin Oakes on March 29, agreed to pay the law firm up to $5,000 for its services. Erwin Oakes refused to address questions on Mr. Chubb during a June 13 press conference. City spokeswoman Kristin Moore could not be reached for comment. Mr. Chubb served as the interim-city attorney following former City Attorney Pete Bade's resignation at the beginning of 2016. He served in the interim capacity until Mayor Karen Weaver appointed Stacy Erwin Oakes as the new city attorney. Erwin Oakes' first day with the city was March 28, one day prior to signing the contract with Foley & Lardner. Following Erwin Oakes' addition, Mr. Chubb continued working with the city as the deputy chief legal officer. Mr. Chubb was at the center of a controversy within the administration after former City Administrator Natasha Henderson raised allegations of possible misconduct by Mayor Karen Weaver. Ms. Henderson filed a federal lawsuit May 9 in Detroit U.S. District Court claiming she was fired from her position after asking the city attorney's office to investigate claims Ms. Weaver may have been telling city staff and volunteers to send potential water crisis donations to her own personal account, rather than the fund managed by the Community Foundation of Greater Flint. The lawsuit claims the mayor's assistant, Maxine Murray, told Henderson that she was specifically directed to tell donors and potential donors step-by-step how to donate to the Karenabout Flint fund through its website, rather than instruct them in the steps to donate to the Community Foundation's fund. Ms. Henderson claims she told the city attorney's office Feb. 9 that the redirection of the charity funds should be further investigated by Mr. Chubb. The lawsuit alleges Ms. Henderson reiterated her concerns in a Feb. 10 email to Mr. Chubb, asking him to "promptly initiate an investigation of this matter in your capacity." She further asked for advice on appropriate actions she could take to protect employees from potential retaliation for reporting such allegations. Mr. Chubb allegedly replied, "I will take prompt action and advise you later today." However, Ms. Henderson claims she again emailed Mr. Chubb on Feb. 12 after not receiving a further response again reached out to the interim city attorney for an update, telling him "this is a very serious matter." The city has denied FOIA requests for emails that allegedly outline Henderson's concerns, citing attorney-client privilege. Mlive-The Flint Journal has appealed the denial. No decision has yet been made on the appeal. However, despite the city's claims of privilege, the email requested by The Flint Journal was printed and displayed on an easel during a June 13 press conference with Erwin Oakes and Okemos-based attorney Brendon Basiga. Mr. Basiga, an attorney hired by Erwin Oakes to investigate Henderson's allegations, said on June 13 that Mr. Chubb initially began looking into the allegations made against the mayor by Henderson. The email on display at the press conference was sent Feb. 10 to Mr. Chubb by Ms. Henderson. It claimed the former city administrator spoke with Ms. Murray inside a supply room of the mayor's office. Mr. Basiga interviewed Mr. Chubb, and he said the former city attorney told him he hired outside counsel to review the allegations against the mayor since the city attorney's office had to recuse itself due to a potential conflict of interest. The city has not disclosed if any findings were made by the attorney hired by Mr. Chubb. The city has not yet responded to a FOIA request from Mlive-The Flint Journal seeking information on the initial investigation launched by Chubb. The city's response to a previous FOIA request from Mlive-The Flint Journal seeking any contracts or retainers the city entered into with outside law firms since the start of 2015 did not include any agreements other than Mr. Basiga's to investigate Henderson's claims. Erwin Oakes said she hired Mr. Basiga in April to conduct the investigation because she was seeking an attorney who would have no anticipation of future work for the city moving forward. Mr. Basiga, on June 13 said the firm hired by Mr. Chubb did previous work for the city. Ultimately, Mr. Basiga said he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Weaver. FONTERRA: Likely to Be in Black This Year, Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Gray, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports that Fonterra's loss-making Australian operation is likely be in the black this year now the co-operative is paying a more realistic milk price, chief executive Theo Spierings has said. He told a special meeting of shareholders that Fonterra's three- year "transformation" plan would put it in profit next year, but with the Australian milk price at A$5/kg ($5.22/kg) a return to profitability was likely to come sooner. Fonterra, due to its contractual relationships, has had to match the main dairy company in Australia -- Murray Goulburn -- which up until recently was offering A$6/kg. Mr. Spierings went on record last year as saying milk price paid in Australia was too high and unreflective of market conditions. Both Fonterra and Murray Goulburn are being investigated by the ACCC -- Australia's equivalent of the Commerce Commission -- over the notice and timing of the milk price cuts, which happened this year. In answer to a question, Mr. Spierings said the transformation program in Australia was about "fixing the leaks" and improving relationships with retailers. "That journey alone would have taken us above the water line next year, but with that reset in the milk price right now, we are surfacing above the water straight away," Mr. Spierings said. But he said Fonterra was running into supply constraints in parts of Victoria, the home of 80 per cent of Australia's export dairy production. The rebuilding of its Stanhope plant, in northern Victoria, damaged by a major fire in 2014, meant Fonterra needed more milk "and the competition landscape around Stanhope is completely different". Fonterra's main collection regions are Tasmania and most parts of Victoria. Murray Goulburn -- Fonterra's larger competitor in Australia -- said on April 27 that its A$5.60 farmgate milk price was no longer achievable, revising it down to A$4.75 to A$5/kg. On May 5, Fonterra Australia revised its farmgate milk price from A$5.60 to A$5. Murray Goulburn also heavily revised down its earnings forecast for the 2015/6. Its units -- listed on the ASX last July -- slumped by more than A$1 from A$2.14 just before the April 27 announcement. Managing director Gary Helou and chief financial officer Brad Hingle have resigned and there have been a string of resignations from the board. Investors have since launched a class action against the company. Fonterra had a contract with Bonlac Supply Co to buy milk from farmers at a price not less than that offered by Murray Goulburn. The basis of the ACCC's investigation is whether the firms misled farmers. The sudden drop in milk prices has caused a furore in the farming community and on the political scene as Australia faces an election in July. At the June 10 special meeting, Fonterra's plan to alter its governance structure was defeated as it failed to achieve 75 per cent support. FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Loyalty Rewards Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a restaurant and tavern group, which operates nearly a dozen sites sprinkled throughout the Loop and Chicago's North and Near West sides, and which hopes to open a new restaurant in Chicago's Maggie Daley Park, has been hit with a class action lawsuit, alleging it left customers with no options to cash out or transfer rewards credits toward free food and drink when the group transitioned to a different customer loyalty rewards program. On June 6, plaintiff Micah Riskin, identified in the lawsuit as a resident of Cook County, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against the Chicago-based Four Corners Tavern Group, alleging the company violated Illinois consumer fraud law and was unjustly enriched in the process when it earlier this year abruptly ended its participation in a loyalty rewards program administered by a third party, in favor of a customized program unique to its own branded establishments. Mr. Riskin is represented in the action by attorneys Aron D. Robinson and Jeffrey Arman, each of Chicago. According to the lawsuit, Four Corners Tavern Group had participated in and promoted customer participation in a loyalty reward program, identified in the lawsuit as Spring Rewards, beginning in early 2015. The program, which relied on an app downloaded to customers' smartphones, enabled patrons of Four Corners' various bars to receive a $10 credit for every $250 spent at a specific Four Corners establishment. According to its website, Four Corners currently operates 11 establishments, identified as Benchmark, Schoolyard, WestEnd, Kirkwood, Gaslight, Sidebar, Ranalli's, Highline, Federales, Fremont and SteakBar. According to the lawsuit, the reward points were specific to individual bars, and could not be transferred to other establishments. For instance, money spent at Highline did not count toward credits at Benchmark or any of Four Corners' other establishments. Mr. Riskin said he enrolled in Spring Rewards at Highline in March 2015. He also enrolled in the program at Four Corners' Benchmark and Kirkwood locations, the lawsuit said. However, in January 2016, Mr. Riskin said he received an email from Four Corners informing him and others like him, enrolled in the Spring Rewards program, that Four Corners was ending its participation in Spring Rewards, in favor of a new customized, in- house rewards program, identified in the lawsuit as My4C Points, which it said "would perfectly suit our customers' needs." The email said customers had until the end of February to redeem any "rewards" they had already earned through Spring Rewards. Mr. Riskin said he had intentionally given those Four Corners bars -- and Highline, in particular -- his business, to accumulate points toward the reward credits. However, he said he was short of receiving the credits at the time the program was cancelled, including just $10 short of receiving the credit at Highline, when the program was cancelled. He alleged Four Corners needed to provide customers options for either transferring reward points already earned into the new program, or redeeming the points in some other way. Mr. Riskin's complaint alleged the plaintiffs believe "hundreds or thousands" of others potentially suffered similar loss when Four Corners transitioned to the new rewards program. The lawsuit asked the court to certify a class of additional plaintiffs, and award unspecified compensatory damages, plus attorney fees. Earlier this year, Four Corners Tavern Group also was revealed as the company the Chicago Park District had selected to operate a new restaurant planned for Chicago's Maggie Daley Park. According to published reports, Park District officials have indicated that restaurant could open sometime in 2017. GENERAL CABLE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Pending ------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that plaintiff's appeal from the lower Court's decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is pending. The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory Kenny, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of Livonia Complaint"). The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft; that we issued materially false financial results that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On January 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the City of Livonia Complaint, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, which the lower Court also denied. On June 9, 2015, plaintiff appealed the lower Court's decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which appeal is currently pending." GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over ABACUS 2007-AC1 Stayed Pending Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 proceedings in a securities class action lawsuit related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction have been stayed by the district court pending an appellate court's decision. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest management, and the SEC investigation that led to Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) entering into a consent agreement with the SEC, settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to proceed. The district court granted class certification on September 24, 2015, but the appellate court granted defendants' petition for review on January 26, 2016. On February 1, 2016, the district court stayed proceedings in the district court pending the appellate court's decision. GOLDMAN SACHS: Accords in 2008 and 2010 Suits Have Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 firm has obtained preliminary court approval of the settlements reached in these two class action lawsuits: (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one other offering and thereafter moved to further amend its amended complaint to add claims with respect to two additional offerings. On December 30, 2015, the district court preliminarily approved a settlement covering both actions. The firm has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement into an escrow account. (2) A class action was filed on September 30, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). On February 11, 2016, the district court preliminarily approved a settlement resolving the action. The firm has reserved the full amount of the proposed settlement. GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Force-Placed Insurance Has Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc., Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton), Ocwen Financial Corporation and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC (Arrow), a former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law and RICO claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On January 15, 2016, Group Inc. and Arrow were added as defendants to a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based on substantially similar allegations, asserting RICO claims and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking similar relief. On April 20, 2016, the court preliminarily approved a settlement among Group Inc., Litton and Arrow and the plaintiffs in the action pending in the Southern District of New York, which would resolve the remaining claims in both actions. The firm has reserved the full amount of its obligations under the proposed settlement. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Solazyme Securities Case Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Solazyme, Inc. (Solazyme) and certain of its directors and officers. As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with March 2014 offerings by Solazyme of approximately $63 million of common stock and $150 million principal amount of convertible senior subordinated notes, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss on February 12, 2016. GS&Co. underwrote 3,450,000 shares of common stock and $150 million principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering price of approximately $187 million. According to a November 2015 Scheduling order in the case, NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLAZYME, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02938-HSG (N.D. Cal.), a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss was to be held May 12, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., or a date thereafter that is convenient for the Court. A copy of the Scheduling Order dated November 9, 2015, is available at https://is.gd/VfTxUo from Leagle.com. GOLDMAN SACHS: FireEye Securities Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 lawsuit related to FireEye, Inc.'s securities offering is proceeding in court after FireEye and its director and officer defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied in April. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On August 11, 2015, the court overruled the defendants' demurrers, which sought to have the consolidated amended complaint dismissed. On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification. FireEye and its director and officer defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was denied on April 1, 2016. GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of approximately $172 million. GOLDMAN SACHS: Cobalt Securities Litigation Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 firm and other defendants continue to defend against the claims in the Cobalt International Energy securities litigation. Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and underwriters (including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others, Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion. On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013, but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. A copy of the January 19 decision is available at https://is.gd/HwljwQ from Leagle.com. Defendants' ensuing motions to certify this order for an interlocutory appeal were denied on March 14, 2016. A copy of the March 14 order is available at https://is.gd/hEZiM8 from Leagle.com. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc. is among the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The second consolidated amended complaint, filed on February 12, 2015, asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 28, 2016, the district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the antitrust, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims, but dismissed the tortious interference and implied covenant of good faith claims with prejudice. GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. on June 3, 2015, were among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain ERISA employee benefit plans. As to the claims brought against GS&Co. and Group Inc., the second amended complaint, filed on April 6, 2016, generally alleges that the defendants violated ERISA in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets, which caused losses to ERISA plans for which the defendants provided foreign exchange services or otherwise authorized the execution of foreign exchange services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as restitution and disgorgement in an unspecified amount. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Consolidate Interest Rate Swap Case Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and Northern District of Illinois. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy among the dealers and brokers since at least January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On February 25, 2016, certain plaintiffs in the New York court filed an amended complaint, and moved to consolidate all pending actions in that court. GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swaps Suit Filed in April 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among the defendants named in an antitrust action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 18, 2016 by the operator of a swap execution facility and certain of its affiliates. The complaint asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on the plaintiffs' swap execution facility and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. HALYARD HEALTH: Parties in Prime Healthcare Case in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the case, Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., are engaged in discovery. The Company said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., (f/k/a Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al.) No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative nationwide class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), negligent misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns. On February 6, 2015, we moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds. On July 10, 2015, the Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim but permitting the remaining claims to stand and proceed to discovery." "On December 11, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that added additional plaintiffs in California, Texas and Rhode Island, named Halyard Health, Inc. as an additional defendant, and extended the timeframe for the lawsuit to include products sold after the Spin-off through December 2015. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter." HAMILTONS VALET: "Martins" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Martins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hamilton's Valet Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Amilton Souza, individually, Defendants, 0:16-cv- 61216-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a Florida Corporation that operates a full service valet parking company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a valet attendant. Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esquire LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com 8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450 Doral, FL33166 Telephone: (561) 299-3703 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com HARTFORD, CT: Hotel Owners Mull Class Action Over Tax Burden ------------------------------------------------------------ Gregory Seay, writing for HartfordBusiness.com, reports that the owner of the high-rise Radisson Hotel overlooking downtown Hartford's stalled ballpark is suing the city, claiming it didn't get the property-tax exemptions the city has granted its nearby competitors. 50 Morgan Hospitality Group LLC, owners of the 18-story, 350-room hotel at 50 Morgan St., filed suit May 23 in Hartford federal court, citing breach of its constitutional right to equal protection, according to court records and the plaintiff's attorney. In bringing its latest legal action against the city, the Radisson's owner has laid bare an allegedly loose tax-forbearance arrangement between the city and a handful of downtown commercial landlords. Moreover, other owners of downtown Hartford hotels say they are closely watching the outcome not only of the Radisson lawsuit but their own pending tax-abatement applications with the city. At least one rival hotel owner says he, too, will consider suing the city if he doesn't receive the tax-relief he's seeking. Rare legal challenge The use of property tax breaks or incentives to encourage economic development is not new to Hartford or other Connecticut cities and towns, but a legal challenge questioning the fairness of such incentives is rare. According to the suit, the issue is that the Radisson --currently owned by Florida hospitality owner/operator Inner Circle -- is assessed on city property-tax rolls at $6.545 million, for which its latest tax bill was $486,228.06. However, the suit contends that three neighboring large downtown hotels -- the Hilton Hartford on Trumbull Street; Hartford Marriott Downtown on Columbus Boulevard; and the Residence Inn By Marriott Hartford Downtown on Main Street -- "have been granted tax exemptions by the [city] and are not required to pay any taxes" despite each being valued at millions of dollars on city tax rolls. "The disparate tax treatment imposed by the [city] upon the [Radisson] in comparison to the . . . three competitors," the suit states, "is intentional but irrational and deprives the [Radisson Hotel and its owners] of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." According to the Radisson owner's New Haven attorney, John R. Williams, his client has been unable to determine how the city and its rivals crafted the tax exemptions, but it hopes to find out during discovery. "Everything is ad hoc," he said. "There isn't a set plan. Everybody is out cutting their own deal." No taxes since 2012 The city assessor's office verified that none of the Ramada's three downtown Hartford rivals has paid property taxes on their land since at least 2012. The reason, according to Jamie Bratt, the city's director of planning and economic development, is that the Residence Inn and Hilton Hartford rest on city land for which they pay the city rent. As such, they are not subject to real estate taxes for the land. But all three hotels are responsible for personal-property levies on the value of furniture, fixtures and equipment in their buildings, Ms. Bratt said. According to city records, the most recent personal-property tax bill for the Residence Inn was $66,441; Marriott Hartford, $156,060; and Hartford Hilton, $118,990. Some Hartford hotels also make payments in lieu of taxes to the city, but their sums couldn't be determined at press time. The Marriott Hartford, as part of the Adriaen's Landing development that includes Front Street and the Connecticut Convention Center, does not pay real estate property tax under a 15-year abatement that the hotel's owner negotiated with the city, Ms. Bratt said. The Radisson is one of three downtown hotels that have tax- abatement applications pending with the city, Ms. Bratt said. She declined to identify the other two, citing privacy concerns for the property owners. Asked whether the Radisson suit could undermine city efforts to negotiate future property-tax abatements, or even force the city to revisit previous tax-aversion pacts, city hall spokesman Brett Broesder said the city does not comment on pending litigation. Other legal issues 50 Morgan Hospitality Group LLC was formed in Aug. 2013, according to the Secretary of the State's office, shortly before Inner Circle became majority owner of the Radisson, after pumping in $11.5 million for property renovations. Inner Circle bought its stake from Magilink Group, a South Korean company that purchased the hotel out of foreclosure in 2010. In Jan. 2014, the owners swapped the hotel's Ramada brand flag for one from Radisson. Inner Circle also reportedly is underway with converting some of the property's upper rooms into apartments, many of which have sweeping views of parts of downtown, including the new Dunkin' Donuts Park. The hotel's owner, which did not respond to a request for comment, has had other legal disputes with the city. Last October, the Radisson's owner won in state court its appeal of the city's 2012 and 2013 assessment of the value of the hotel's personal property -- consisting of furniture, fixtures and equipment that included data-processing equipment; telecommunications gear; hotel uniforms/linens, among other items, court records show. According to court papers, 50 Morgan hired an appraiser who set the hotel's personal-property fair value in continued use at $330,780 as of Oct. 1, 2012 and $454,000 as of Oct. 1, 2013. The city assessor, however, asserted the hotel's personal property was worth way more: $893,890 in assessed value on its personal property in 2012. Ultimately, a trial referee sided with the hotel owner, declaring that both the hired appraiser's Oct. 1, 2012 and Oct. 1, 2013 personal-property valuations of $330,780 and $454,000, respectively, were reasonably calculated based on the hotel's use of the items rather than for their purchase or sale. Hotel owner's plight Landlord Paul Khakshouri says he has been an investor in downtown Hartford real estate the past 16 years. One of his holdings is the former Bond Hotel, now Homewood Suites, at 338 Asylum St. Mr. Khakshouri says Homewood also is among the three hotels with a pending tax-abatement application at city hall. He said he needs property-tax relief because overall occupancy among Hartford's downtown hotels has been stuck at an average 58 percent for the last four years. Moreover, he is petrified at the prospect that a looming revaluation of all city residential and commercial real estate likely will show values have increased, triggering higher property-tax bills. If his tax bill climbs, he said, along with the prospect that Aetna's pending merger with Humana further shrinks executive- travelers' use of his lodging services, the resulting drag on Homewood's profitability would place it "in dire straits." Class action possible Similar concerns prompted him, he said, to sell the former 96-room Holiday Inn Express hotel, now a Red Roof Inn, doors away from Homewood Suites. The problem, he said, is an existing loophole that allows hotels atop city- or state-owned real estate to qualify for favorable tax treatment. He said that if the city denies his latest request for tax relief, he would strongly consider following in the Radisson's footsteps - - and urge other aggrieved hotel owners to join -- in pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the city. "It's unfair play," Mr. Khakshouri said. HOBART SERVICE: Class Cert. Bid in "Alcantar" Under Submission -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered order in the class action lawsuit styled JOSELUIS ALCANTAR v. HOBART SERVICE, ET AL., Case No. 5:11- cv-01600-PSG-SP (C.D. Cal.), taking the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under submission. Accordingly, the court has considered all papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the supplemental referenced above, and the oral argument presented. A ruling will be issued after full consideration of the submitted pleadings. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tUX0St5B Joseluis Alcantar, Plaintiff, is represented by: Robin Gibson Workman, Esq. Workman Law Firm, PC 177 Post St Ste 900 San Francisco, CA 94108-4712 E-mail: robin@qualls-workman.com The Defendant is represented by: Mara Curtis, Esq. Thomas Hill, Esq. Reed Smith LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com thill@reedsmith.com HORTONWORKS INC: Faces Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------- Hortonworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 29, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company, Robert G. Bearden and Scott J. Davidson. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hortonworks' securities between November 4, 2015 and January 15, 2016, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Based on a review of the allegations, we believe that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. HOUSTON GARDEN: Conditional Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Romero on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THE Plaintiffs v. HOUSTON GARDEN CENTERS, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00935 (S.D. Tex.), asks the District Court to rule that: (1) Houston Garden Centers' Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate will not restrict the Putative Class Members' right to receive notice and bring a claim damages under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) this case is conditionally certified for purpose of notice and discovery; (3) Hoston Garden Centers shall produce to Plaintiff's counsel the names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in a usable electronic format for each Putative Class Members; (4) a notice and consent form shall be sent to the Putative Class Members, by mail and e-mail, informing them of their rights to bring a claim for damages under FLSA; (5) order Plaintiff's counsel to call those class members who have not returned a consent form after 30 days from the initial mailing to ensure receipt of the notice; (6) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the case. Plaintiff asks the Court to immediately certify a collective action of general laborers and supervisors employed by Defendant over the past three years. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xuEENOvb The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778 8182 Facsimile: (832) 778 8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Zalewski Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- II-VI Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against the Zalewski Litigation. The Company has been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned Wes Zalewski v. ANADIGICS, Inc., et al., filed on January 27, 2016 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County (the "Zalewski Litigation"), which is related to the Company's acquisition of ANADIGICS, Inc. ("ANADIGICS"). In the Zalewski Litigation, the plaintiff, a stockholder in ANADIGICS, generally alleges, among other things, that the members of ANADIGICS's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to ANADIGICS's shareholders, putting the board of directors' personal interests ahead of the interests of ANADIGICS, using allegedly unfair deal protection devices, and having an unfair and inadequate process in negotiating the tender offer and the merger. The plaintiff also has named the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Regulus Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), as defendants in the lawsuit, alleging that both Purchaser and II-VI aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the ANADIGICS board of directors. In March 2016, the Zalewski Litigation was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and is now captioned Wes Zalewski v. ANADIGICS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-00136-SLR. The plaintiff in the Zalewski Litigation is now seeking monetary relief and attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company and the other defendants are reviewing the allegations in the Zalewski Litigation, but believe the Zalewski Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. The Company does not believe that a material loss related to this claim is reasonably possible. II-VI Incorporated, a worldwide leader in engineered materials and opto-electronic components, is a vertically integrated manufacturing company that develops innovative products for diversified applications in the industrial, optical communications, military, life sciences, semiconductor equipment, and consumer markets. INFINITY INSURANCE: Copelan Asks Court to Certify 2 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled JAMES B. COPELAN and BRIAN M. LOWENTHAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01355-R-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs move this court for an order that certifies this action as a class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated, namely: -- Any current or former resident of the State of California who, within the last four years, sustained diminished value losses to a vehicle insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) as a result of an automobile accident involving an automobile and/or driver insured under an Infinity Insurance Company (Infinity) automobile liability policy and who was not paid for diminished value damages and on whose behalf Liberty failed to pursue diminished value damages prior to seeking subrogation from Infinity (Copelan Class); and -- Any current or former resident of the State of California who caused damages to a third-party's automobile as a result of an automobile accident or collision while insured under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Infinity who, within the last four years, was sued by, or otherwise subjected to a claim, legal proceedings, or administrative proceedings instituted by, the third-party (or, its agents and/or representatives) for diminished value damages resulting from the accident after Infinity declined and/or failed to pay the third-party's diminished value claim (Class Period) and who Infinity declined and/or failed to defend in such proceedings (Lowenthal Class). Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the Court allow Plaintiffs to conduct pre-certification discovery, which is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of additional, material information and evidence substantiating Plaintiffs' class allegations and request for class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5433zTiA The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Sparks, Esq. MOSTYN LAW FIRM 6280 Delaware Street Beaumont, TX 77706 Telephone: (409) 832 2777 Facsimile: (409) 832 2703 E-mail: mark@mostynlaw.com - and - Montie S. Day, Esq. DAY LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 1525 William, CA 95987 Telephone: (208) 280 3766 Facsimile: (800) 291 2901 E-mail: msdayesq@aol.com INTEX RECREATION: Class Certification Sought in "Mirescu" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs move for Class Certification in the class action lawsuit styled GEORGETA MIRESCU, and TERENCE DUFFY, individually and, on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INTEX RECREATION CORP., a California corporation; INTEX MARKETING LTD., a British Virgin Islands limited company; INTEX CORP., a California corporation; INTEX GROUP, a California corporation; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:16-cv-01682-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.) The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, consisting of: "All persons in the United States who purchased an Intex air mattress." Plaintiffs also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and for appointment of Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs file the Motion for Class Certification at this time in order to comply with Local Rule 23- 3, and preserve their right to proceed on a classwide basis. Prior to filing this Motion, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application for Relief from Local Rule 23-3 (Application). If that Application is granted, Plaintiffs intend to withdraw this Motion, and will resubmit it at a later time as prescribed by the Court. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vtbCQ5aQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 Facsimile: (312) 440 4180 E-mail: www.attomeyzim.com - and - Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. Charles T. Spagnola, Esq. Eliot F. Krieger, Esq. SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG, SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 597 7070 Facsimile: (562) 597 7772 E-mail: atamburelli@sullivankrieger.com cspagnola@sullivankrieger.com ekrieger@sullivankrieger.com IT'S JUST LUNCH: Settles Class Action Over Dating Site ------------------------------------------------------ Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that if you didn't get a match from the dating site "It's Just Lunch," there could be a explanation according to the lawsuit. "The class action alleges they were ignoring your preferences and what you were asking for," Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com said. A lawsuit also alleges matches weren't made by professionals, but by employees with no training. If you joined the site after October of 2001, the settlement means a $450 voucher with the company to try it again, or you can give the voucher away. KEYS PRODUCTIONS: Collective Action Sought in "Dixon" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled MICHEA DIXON, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KEYS PRODUCTIONS, INC. D/B/A RED GARTER; MARK ROSSI, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-10223-JLK (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) adopt the attached "Consent Notice to Become Party Plaintiff"; and (2) order Defendant to disclose to Plaintiff the names and last known mailing addresses of all persons that danced as exotic entertainers at Red Garter in Key West, Florida at any time during a three year period before the Complaint was filed within 20 days of the Court's Order permitting this case to proceed as a collective action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1rjiop7L The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam B. Kenner, Esq. KENNER, CUMMMINGS & IMPARATO, PLLC 175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 384 7370 Facsimile: (305) 384 7371 E-mail: adam@kennercummings.com LAFAYETTE, IN: Class Action Seeks Refunds of Utility Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit is seeking what could be more than $400 million in refunds for thousands of current and former customers of a government-owned utility system in Lafayette. The suit, filed in state court, centers on annual payments that the Lafayette Utilities System makes to the city to support city services. The system's most recent payment was about $22 million. The lawsuit claims that the "in-lieu-of-tax payments" amount to an unconstitutional, excessive fee on customers' bills. The utility system's director, Terry Huval, says the payments have "legally been in use for many decades." The Advocate reports that there don't appear to be any similar legal challenges in Louisiana, where these payment arrangements aren't unusual for publicly owned utility systems. The suit's plaintiffs include a well-known local restaurant owner, Nidal Balbeisi. The case was filed by the Opelousas firm of Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett. The utility system has more than 65,000 electric customers. The lawsuit seeks a refund of the portion of customer payments, from 1976 to present, that were used to fund the utility system's annual in-lieu-of-tax payments. The suit doesn't specify the amount of damages it seeks, but the in-lieu-of-tax payments total more than $400 million since 1976. That amount is more than four times greater than the city's general fund budget. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in a class action lawsuit is pending. In 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its CEO assisted various breaches of fiduciary duties based on the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical program from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February 2015, which the Company moved to dismiss in March 2015. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2015. The plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims against the Company and its CEO. The outcome of the matter is not presently determinable. Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company with a business model that is based upon the concept of developing or acquiring royalty revenue generating assets and coupling them with a lean corporate cost structure. LIN MING-HUI: Survivors of Collapsed Building File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Yang Sze-jui and S.C. Chang, writing for CNA, report that survivors of a building that collapsed in Tainan, aided by the government, filed a class-action lawsuit on June 13 against the builder, seeking more than NT$800 million (US$24.70 million) in compensation, city officials said that day. Hsiao Po-jen, director of the city's Department of Legal Affairs, said his department has been working with the Executive Yuan's Consumer Protection Committee and the Chinese Taipei Consumers' Foundation on matters related to legal compensation for the families of the victims living in the Weiguan Jinlong apartment complex that collapsed in a Feb. 6 earthquake that rattled southern Taiwan. A total of 115 people died and 96 were injured when their building toppled during the magnitude-6.4 temblor. The Consumers' Foundation filed the lawsuit against Lin Ming-hui and others responsible for building the defective apartments, Hsiao said. He added that the city government had earlier sought a ruling from the Tainan District Court on a provisional attachment of NT$598.32 million (US$18.46 million)-worth of assets of the suspects. To date, 90 survivors have joined the class-action lawsuit, and Hsiao urged those who have not signed up to get in touch with the city government or the Consumers' Foundation by the end of September -- the deadline for this type of lawsuit, which has a statute of limitations. LIVANOVA PLC: To Defend Against Baker Miller Case ------------------------------------------------- LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against the case, Baker, Miller et al v. LivaNova PLC On February 12, 2016, LivaNova was alerted that a class action complaint had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania with respect to the Company's 3T Heater Cooler devices, naming as evidence, in part, the Warning Letter issued by the FDA in December 2015. The named plaintiffs to the complaint are two individuals who underwent open heart surgeries at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in 2015, and the complaint alleges that: (i) patients were exposed to a harmful form of bacteria, known as nontubercuous mycobacterium ("NTM"), from LivaNova's 3T Heater Cooler devices; and (ii) LivaNova knew or should have known that design or manufacturing defects in 3T Heater Cooler devices can lead to NTM bacterial colonization, regardless of the cleaning and disinfection procedures used (and recommended by the Company). Named plaintiffs seek to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and who are currently asymptomatic for NTM infection (approximately 3,600 patients). The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) declaratory relief finding the 3T Heater Cooler devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses; (ii) medical monitoring; (iii) general damages; and (iv) attorneys' fees. On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. as defendants. At LivaNova, patient safety is of the utmost importance, and significant resources are dedicated to the delivery of safe, high- quality products. "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims," the Company said. "Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot, however, give any assurances that additional legal proceedings making the same or similar allegations will not be filed against LivaNova PLC or one of its subsidiaries, nor that the resolution of the complaint and any related litigation in connection therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity." MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Mainsource Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants and lead plaintiffs have entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the merger class action lawsuits. On November 23, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Cheviot Financial Corp., a Maryland corporation ("Cheviot"), pursuant to which Cheviot will merge with and into the Company, whereupon the separate corporate existence of Cheviot will cease and MainSource will survive. It is anticipated that immediately after the Merger, Cheviot Savings Bank, an Ohio-chartered savings and loan association and a wholly- owned subsidiary of Cheviot, will merge with and into MainSource Bank, an Indiana chartered commercial bank and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, with MainSource Bank as the surviving bank. The merger became effective on May 20, 2016 and was completed in accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of November 23, 2015, between Cheviot and MainSource. At the effective time of the merger, stockholders of Cheviot will have the right to elect to receive either 0.6916 shares of the Company's common stock or $15.00 in cash for each share of Cheviot common stock owned, subject to proration provisions specified in the Merger Agreement that provide for a targeted aggregate split of total consideration of 50% common stock and 50% cash. Based upon the November 20, 2015 closing price of $23.56 per share of the Company's common stock, the transaction is valued at approximately $107.4 million. Cheviot Financial Corp is the holding company of Cheviot Savings Bank. Cheviot Savings Bank was founded in 1911 as an Ohio- chartered savings and loan association and reorganized into a two- tier mutual holding company in 2004. Cheviot now operates 12 full service offices spanning across Hamilton County. As of December 31, 2015, Cheviot had $572,000 of total assets, $376,171 of loans, $454,885 of deposits and total equity of $96,469. Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging the proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its directors, and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These actions are captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15, 2016); and (2) Stephen Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case No. A1600936 (filed February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions"). On February 29, 2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the actions under Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (collectively, the "Actions"). The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to the stockholders of Cheviot, that the consideration to be received by the stockholders is inadequate and undervalues Cheviot, that the Merger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices that purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other bidders from making successful competing offers for Cheviot, that the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of the directors of Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the Merger Agreement involves conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Cheviot. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the registration statement on Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connection with the Merger, provides materially misleading and incomplete information rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to make an informed decision with respect to the Merger. On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Cheviot's stockholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. The Company does not anticipate a material financial impact as a result of the actions or MOU. MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced in a class action lawsuit in California. Following the public announcement of Sanofies election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the Company's stock price, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court") against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and have been pled as putative shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief. On April 29, 2016, two putative shareholders filed a Joint Stipulation with the District Court seeking an order consolidating the actions for all purposes, appointing them co-lead plaintiffs, and approving their selection of lead counsel. The Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced. MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Class Action in Tel Aviv ---------------------------------------------------------------- MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that following the public announcement of Sanofies election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the district court at Tel Aviv (Economic Department) for the certification of a class action against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. The Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced. MARIETTA MEMORIAL: "Myers" Plaintiffs Must Submit to Deposition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Lynnett Myers, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Marietta Memorial Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-2956 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Terence P. Kemp granted in part and denied, in part, Memorial Health System Marietta Memorial Hospital's motion to compel the depositions of the plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, Arvav Lowther, and opt-in plaintiff Stacy Hanlon. Judge Kemp granted the motion to compel to the extent it seeks to depose the plaintiffs and denied to the extent it seeks an award of fees and costs. Judge Kemp also granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The plaintiffs were ordered to provide dates for their depositions within 14 days from the date of the order. Lastly, Judge Kemp denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a protective order, cease and desist order, corrective actions, and the immediate granting of the plaintiffs' motion for issuance of notice to the extent that it seeks a protective order prohibiting the depositions A full-text copy of Judge Kemp's June 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/oNbrrM from Leagle.com. The complaint in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case was filed on October 28, 2015 by Myers, Butler, and Lowther against the hospital asserting a wage and hour claim. Subsequently, Hanlon consented to opt in as a plaintiff. Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, Arva Lowther, Plaintiffs, represented by Marcy J. Stevens, Chapin Legal Group, LLC & Lance Chapin, Chapin Legal Group, LLC. Marietta Memorial Hospital, Defendant, represented by James Edward Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP & Catherine L Strauss -- catherine.strauss@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. Marietta Health Care Inc, Selby General Hospital, Defendants, represented by James Edward Davidson, Ice Miller LLP. MATTRESS FIRM: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, on June 12 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation concerning whether Mattress Firm Holding Corp. violated federal securities laws. Mattress Firm operates as a specialty retailer of mattresses and related products and accessories in the United States. On June 9, 2016, Mattress Firm announced its financial results for the first fiscal quarter ended May 3, 2016. Mattress Firm also cut its annual forecast to $2.25 to $2.35 per share and announced it would incur an impairment charge of $138.7 million for the quarter stemming from a decision to rebrand all of its stores under the Mattress Firm name. Following this news, shares of Mattress Firm closed down over 12% on June 10, 2016. This disclosure preceded a March 21, 2016 announcement when Mattress Firm reported disappointing fourth quarter earnings of $0.53 per share and provided full year guidance of $2.50 to $2.60 per share. Adding to the disappointing results, Mattress Firm announced that President Ken Murphy would replace CEO Steve Stagner. If you are a Mattress Firm shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number where you can be reached. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Cortez" Remanded to Sacramento County ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned JOSEPH CORTEZ, BRAD ASBURY, MARGARET FELTS, and BELEN DURFEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC., and DOES1 through 50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-01891-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and denied as moot the defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's June 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/NLLpOL from Leagle.com. The putative class action was initiated on or about October 2, 2014, when Joseph Cortez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint against McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., a corporation owning several newspapers throughout California, in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Cortez filed a First Amended Complaint on or about April 24, 2015, after the Superior Court partially sustained McClatchy's demurrers to the original complaint. On or about July 30, 2015, Cortez, together with Brad Asbury, Margaret Felts, and Belen Durfee, filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. The plaintiffs' claims arose from McClatchy's allegedly false and misleading billing practices in connection with newspaper subscriptions. On September 8, 2015, McClatchy filed a Notice of Removal alleging the district court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Joseph Cortez, Brad Asbury, Margaret Felts, Belen Durfee, Plaintiffs, represented by Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert James Herrington -- herrington@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Benjamin Samuel Kurtz -- kurtzb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Kurt A. Kappes -- kappesk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP. MDL 1657: 5 Vioxx Product Liability Suits v. Merck Still Active --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in approximately five active federal and state lawsuits (Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits) alleging personal injury as a result of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the Vioxx MDL) before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of Vioxx. All but one of those cases are in the Vioxx MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to resolve all properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the settlement in January 2014 and the claims review process was recently completed. Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. The lawsuits are pending in state courts. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. Trial has been scheduled in the Montana case for September 12, 2016, and trial has been set in the Alaska case for January 9, 2017. A motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Montana case is currently pending. Merck's motion to dismiss in Utah and motion for judgment on the pleadings in Alaska were both recently denied. MDL 1657: June 28 Final Approval Hearing on Vioxx Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has set a final approval hearing for June 28, 2016, on the settlement in the Vioxx securities lawsuits. Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits have been filed against Merck and certain former employees alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making alleged material misstatements and omissions with respect to the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx (Vioxx Securities Lawsuits). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action (the Class Action). In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, which defendants answered in July 2013. Following the completion of discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part in May 2015. On January 15, 2016, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the Class Action for $830 million, plus an additional amount for attorneys' fees and expenses, in exchange for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of the Class Action and full releases of all claims against defendants. The Company paid the total settlement amount into escrow in April 2016. After available funds under certain insurance policies, Merck's net cash payment for the settlement and fees was approximately $680 million. The proposed settlement covers all claims relating to Vioxx by settlement class members who purchased Merck securities between May 21, 1999, and October 29, 2004. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and, as part of the settlement agreement, defendants continue to deny the allegations. The proposed settlement, including any award of attorneys' fees and expenses, is subject to final court approval. On February 8, 2016, the parties filed the stipulation of settlement, which the court preliminarily approved on February 11, 2016. The court has set a final approval hearing for June 28, 2016. The proposed settlement does not resolve the individual securities lawsuits. In connection with the settlement of the Class Action, which remains subject to final court approval, the Company established a net reserve of $680 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. The Company also has a reserve with respect to certain Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits and an immaterial remaining reserve relating to the previously disclosed Vioxx investigation for the non- participating states with which litigation is continuing. The Company has established no other liability reserves for, and believes that it has meritorious defenses to, the remaining Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, Vioxx Securities Lawsuits and Vioxx International Lawsuits (collectively, the Remaining Vioxx Litigation) and will vigorously defend against them. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, particularly where there are many claimants and the claimants seek indeterminate damages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters and, at this time, cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to the Remaining Vioxx Litigation. MDL 1789: 4,435 Fosamax Cases v. Merck Pending as of March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of March 31, 2016, approximately 4,435 cases had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 30 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,405 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax. Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax ONJ MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement Agreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200 plaintiffs. As a condition to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100% participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the participation level was approximately 95%. Merck has fully funded the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and the escrow agent under the agreement has been making settlement payments to qualifying plaintiffs. The claims of approximately 35 non-participants' will remain once the settlement is complete. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures. MDL 2452: 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Claims Served as of March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of March 31, 2016, approximately 1,140 product user claims have been served on Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation" (MDL). The MDL includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court). There are 12 cases pending against Merck in state courts other than the California State Court. On November 9, 2015, the MDL granted summary judgment on the grounds of preemption as to all claims alleging injury due to pancreatic cancer. Based on that ruling, on November 30, 2015, the MDL entered final judgment resulting in the dismissal of the pancreatic cancer claims against Merck relating to approximately 715 product users. On November 16, 2015, the California State Court likewise granted summary judgment on preemption grounds as to claims alleging injury due to pancreatic cancer. Based on that ruling, on April 5, 2016, the California State Court entered final judgment resulting in the dismissal of the pancreatic cancer claims against Merck relating to approximately 350 product users. Plaintiffs are appealing the MDL preemption ruling, and are expected to do likewise with respect to the California State Court ruling. In addition to the claims, the Company has agreed, as of December 31, 2015, to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 20 additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending against these lawsuits. MDL 2481: Class Cert. Ruling Expected by Mid-October 2016 --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York expects to rule on a motion for class certification in the case, In re ALUMINUM WAREHOUSING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 13-md-2481 (KBF) and all related cases (S.D.N.Y.), by mid-October 2016, according to a joint scheduling order. Judge Katherine B. Forrest on June 13 entered the Joint Scheduligng Order providing for this timeline: 1. Fact discovery, except to the extent stated, closed on May 13, 2016. (a) Each side may conduct up to and including 10 depositions of their choice (inclusive of any third-party depositions) not later than June 13, 2016. 2. Opposition briefs on plaintiffs' motion for class certification (ECF No. 932) shall be due not later than July 8, 2016. (a) Reply briefs shall be due not later than August 5, 2016. (b) Oral argument shall be heard on September 8, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Court expects to rule on class cert. by mid-October 2016. 3. Expert discovery shall close on March 17, 2017. (a) Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be produced not later than November 4, 2016. (b) Defendants' expert reports shall be produced not later than February 1, 2017. (c) Plaintiffs' reply expert reports shall be produced not later than March 3, 2017. (d) Expert depositions shall be completed by March 17, 2017. 4. Motions for summary judgment shall be due not later than March 21, 2017. (a) Oppositions shall be due not later than April 26, 2017. (b) Replies shall be due not later than May 24, 2017. 5. Trial shall commence on July 10, 2017. (a) The Final Pretrial Conference ("FPTC") is set for June 29, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. (b) Motions in limine are due on May 31, 2017; oppositions are due June 16, 2017. (c) Daubert motions are due on May 31, 2017; oppositions are due June 16, 2017 (no replies). (d) Pretrial materials, including the Joint Pretrial Order, are due not later than July 3, 2017. Deposition due by March 17, 2017. Discovery due by March 17, 2017. Motions due by May 31, 2017. Pretrial Order due by July 3, 2017. Reply due by May 24, 2017. Responses due by June 16, 2017. The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the remaining plaintiffs sought to amend their complaints in October 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints, rejecting their monopolization claims and most state law claims but permitting their antitrust conspiracy claims and certain parallel state law and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. The court directed the remaining plaintiffs to file their amended complaints, which they did on April 9, 2015. Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed their state law claims. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On April 25, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motions for leave to further amend their complaints. A copy of the Court's April 25 decision is available at https://is.gd/n3G3kh from Leagle.com. Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Derek Y. Brandt, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Bardnerd LLC & Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP. Defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs International, J. Aron & Company, and Metro International Trade Services LLC, are represented by Richard C. Pepperman, II -- peppermanr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP. Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Securities PLC, Henry Bath LLC, are represented by David William Haller -- dhaller@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP. Glencore Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot Lauer -- elauer@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP. Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by John M. Nannes -- john.nannes@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. MEDICAL REVIEW: "Walpole" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Charlene M. Walpole, for herself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Medical Review Service, Inc., Katherine S. Blomqvist, individually, Erik Jonas Blomqvist, individually and Jennifer Robinson, individually, Defendants, Case 9:16-cv-80935- DMM (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is into the auditing of billings for medical services provided by hospitals and other medical facilities where Walpole worked as an audit supervisor. Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq. Lisa M. Kohring, Esq. SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES 625 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 659-3300 Facsimile: (561) 693-4540 Email: steve@schwarzberglaw.com mail@schwarzberglaw.com lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com MERCK & CO: 20 Femur Fracture Cases Pending as of March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, approximately 20 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL. In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (the Femur Fracture MDL). Judge Pisano presided over the Femur Fracture MDL until March 10, 2015, at which time the Femur Fracture MDL was reassigned from Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson following Judge Pisano's retirement. In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor. In addition, on June 27, 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to the show cause order, on March 26, 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases are appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In June 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed without prejudice another approximately 520 cases pending plaintiffs' appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. On June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano enter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the court granted Merck's motion and entered the requested show cause order. As of March 31, 2016, approximately 20 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL, excluding the 515 cases dismissed with prejudice on preemption grounds that are pending appeal and the 520 cases dismissed without prejudice that are also pending the aforementioned appeal. MERCK & CO: 3,040 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, approximately 3,040 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July 2015. MERCK & CO: 300 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, approximately 300 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs' selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began on February 17, 2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April 3, 2015, and plaintiff has appealed that verdict to the California appellate court. The next Femur Fracture trial in California that was scheduled to begin on April 25, 2016, was stayed at plaintiffs' request and a new trial date has not been set. Additionally, there are six Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 1,385 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed as of March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of March 31, 2016, approximately 1,385 lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 55 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Mayer in Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in Massachusetts and one matter pending in state court in New York. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: Court Granted Bid to Amend Sales Force Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Sales Force Litigation, a Magistrate Judge has granted plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint. In May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement, (b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state discrimination laws. In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional named plaintiffs. On October 8, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions, including a motion for conditional certification under the Equal Pay Act; a motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers in opposition to the motions. On April 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification but denied plaintiffs' motions to extend the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June 2009. As a result, the liability period will date back to April 2012, at the earliest. On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint to add the following: (i) a Company subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii) an ERISA claim and (iii) an individual constructive discharge claim for one of the named plaintiffs. MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Dismisses FDCPA Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that eighteen months after the filing of a putative Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) class action that arose out of a $131 balance on a Verizon account a New York Federal Judge has granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. The case is Huebner v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. Case No. 14-cv-6046 (BMC), United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The case involved the following facts: In 2010, plaintiff switched his phone service to Verizon. He previously had Verizon service but had changed to another carrier. As a result of his reversion to Verizon, the provider performed some work on plaintiff's phone line to ensure he had adequate service. Verizon billed him a $131 fee for that work. Plaintiff advised Verizon that he should not have been charged this fee and he never paid the bill. Midland Credit Management (MCM) and Midland Funding, LLC (Midland) acquired the debt from Verizon in July 2013. Midland purchased the debt and placed it with MCM for servicing. The account reflected that plaintiff owed Verizon $131.21. Plaintiff is an attorney. On October 17, 2013, plaintiff called MCM. He had set up a tape recorder before making the call and recorded the entire call. During that call plaintiff asked what he had to do to dispute the debt; the agent asked him what the dispute was, and plaintiff repeatedly refused to describe it. However, plaintiff's refusals were sufficiently indirect and oblique that each one caused the collection agent to ask another question in an effort to find out what the problem was with the debt. Plaintiff consistently evaded the questions. Defendant's records of plaintiff's account contain the agent's notes of the call, and show that she marked the account as "deleted" following the call. Defendant's records also establish that on the same day, following the call, it sent plaintiff a letter advising him that it had ceased collection efforts and had instructed the Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs) to delete the information MCM had reported regarding the account. Defendant's internal procedures recognize the options allowed under the FDCPA when it determines that a debt is disputed. Defendant can simply mark and report the debt to the CRAs as disputed, and either leave it in that category or attempt to confirm the validity of the debt and, if it can confirm validity, proceed with collection efforts. Alternatively, upon marking the debt as disputed, defendant can simply delete it, which it will presumably do if it determines that the debt is not worth the trouble of pursuing. The records also showed that following the call, defendant coded the account as "289," which, meant that the account was disputed and deleted. Within six days after the call, defendant sent multiple requests to Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax, starting on October 23, 2013, asking them to delete the item in question. These requests were reiterated on a monthly basis three times thereafter pursuant to defendant's policy of issuing repeated requests to the CRAs to increase the likelihood that the agencies will comply with requests for deletion. On October 15, 2014 Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect a $131 debt plaintiff allegedly owed Verizon and purchased by the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's attempt to seek an explanation from him when it marked his debt as disputed, as well as its failure to report his debt as disputed, were both illegal. insideARM previously wrote about this case on February, 17, 2015. At that time the Judge in the case, The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, had issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed, with fees awarded under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(3), and sanctions issued pursuant to Rule 11. As noted in that February 17, 2016 article, in that Order the Judge had some harsh commentary about the case: "[This] case . . . goes beyond anything that the Court has seen. It represents a deliberate and transparent attempt by a sophisticated debtor to entrap a collection company into a technical violation. Even more problematically, plaintiff chose to bring this action even though there is a tape recording showing that the attempt at entrapment utterly failed. The collection company in this case did everything by the book, and yet has still found itself a defendant in an FDCPA action. There are substantial questions about whether this action should be allowed to proceed and whether defendant is entitled to recover attorneys' fees for having had to defend it." On May 15, 2015 Judge Cogan issued his decision on the Order to Show Cause. Judge Cogan again chastised the Plaintiff: "In responding to the Order to Show Cause, plaintiff does not deny that he attempted to trick defendant into a violation of the FDCPA. Instead, he makes essentially two arguments. First, he claims that if I had a more complete record, which he has now supplied, I would have seen that defendant did, in fact, violate the FDCPA, for reasons to which he did not refer at the Initial Status Conference. Second, he alleges that because the Order to Show Cause criticized abuses of the FDCPA by some attorneys and plaintiffs, and because of the manner in which I have managed this case, I have demonstrated bias that mandates my recusal. As part of this argument, he contends that I have a financial interest in defendant, and therefore should not be hearing this case. Based on these allegations, he moves to vacate the Order to Show Cause, to have me recuse myself, and to certify for appeal my ruling on these motions in the event I deny them. Defendant has opposed plaintiff's motion, urging that there is neither merit to his case nor to his motion for recusal. . . . plaintiff's motion for recusal is in part frivolous and entirely without merit. Had plaintiff done his research, he would have learned that I have no financial interest, as that term is defined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, in defendant, and that nothing in the Order to Show Cause, or in my management of this case, approaches the level necessary to warrant disqualification. With respect to the merits of plaintiff's case, to the extent that the Order to Show Cause was based on only a partial view of the facts (and it appears now that it was), it was because plaintiff's counsel, in violation of his obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, failed to give me any of the facts behind his claim other than his reliance on the recorded conversation, which proved nothing except plaintiff's failed attempt to entrap defendant. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion for recusal and related relief is denied. The case shall proceed in the normal course to determine if the new version of the claim that plaintiff has now set forth has any merit. However, I am sanctioning plaintiff's attorney for failing to participate in the Initial Status Conference in good faith as required by Rule 16." In the Order granting Summary Judgment, Judge Cogan writes: "Even construing the facts most favorably to [plaintiff] (like assuming he never received either of the two mailings that defendant sent him), and applying the "least sophisticated consumer" standard (although plaintiff is a lawyer and anything but an unsophisticated consumer), see, e.g., Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1318-19 (2d Cir. 1993), I cannot see a genuine issue of fact as to any of them. Defendant did exactly what it was supposed to do under the FDCPA. Indeed, defendant undertook this action even though any reasonable reading of plaintiff's recorded call shows that he was trying to trick defendant into not complying with the FDCPA. Defendant failed to take the bait and allowed him to dispute his debt; it then stopped collecting on the debt and notified the CRAs. Defendant's policies instruct its employees to ask follow-up questions when a consumer advises that he is disputing his debt. I see no problem with that under the law at all. There is nothing unreasonable about allowing a debt collector to ask an individual to explain why he is disputing his debt, as long as it does not interfere with an individual's ability to dispute that debt. Asking follow-up questions enables the debt collector to focus its investigation on what the problem is with the debt, rather than shooting in the dark. It might even allow the collection agency to resolve the dispute on the spot. If the consumer answers the question by saying, "I only owe $120, not $131," the collection agent might well say, "fine, we'll take it." Problem solved. What plaintiff did is not what the least sophisticated consumer would do, because the least sophisticated consumer would not be an experienced FDCPA lawyer trying to manufacture an FDCPA claim. He would not say that he is disputing the debt "because the debt is non- existent," leaving the agent clueless. Rather, when asked why he wanted to dispute the claim, the least sophisticated consumer would simply say, "Verizon didn't tell me they were going to charge me reinstituting service, and when they charged me, I refused to pay." The truth seldom requires any sophistication. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is therefore granted, and the Third Amended Complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly." insideARM Perspective The court records show the following totals: -- 96 separate documents filed -- 7 different attorneys representing the Plaintiff -- 3 separate, lengthy Orders from the Judge Handling the case It is difficult to provide meaningful perspective on three separate Orders with simple, clean, concise language from a United States District Court Judge. Simply reading the three Orders will provide all the perspective needed. This case has been ongoing for 18 months. MCM had to spend considerable amounts in legal fees to defend the action. All on a $131 account! The obvious question is whether this is really the end of the line for this case. MINOR LEAGUE: February 2017 Trial Scheduled for Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Gonzalez, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Minor league baseball players don't have inflated salaries and big endorsement deals. Instead, they supplement their income with odd jobs and by living with their parents. Twins prospect Chris Paul drives his car for Uber during the offseason. Max Murphy lives with mom and dad. Trey Vavra spent an offseason working at a truck stop. The Twins minor league affiliate in Fort Myers helped remind baseball fans that all professional baseball players aren't wealthy in an in-depth story published by Southwest Florida's News-Press. The interesting article titled "Minor league players earn less than minimum wage" reveals just how bad the pay really is and what players are doing to create change. Fort Myers Miracle players start at $1,500 a month and often work 60-plus hour work weeks, which when you break it down, is an hourly wage just north of $6. Florida's minimum wage is $8.05 and the federal minimum is $7.25. Minnesota's minimum wage is $9. During spring training, players receive only $120 a week in meal money. During the offseason, minor league and big league players are not paid. Comparatively, the major league minimum salary averages out to about $85,000 a month. Former minor league pitcher Garrett Broshuis is fighting to change these low pay standards. Now an attorney in St. Louis, Mr. Broshuis is representing more than 2,300 players in filing a class-action lawsuit to change minor-league salaries. The case is set for trial in February 2017. MISSOURI: Mo. Ct. App. Rules on "Poger" Appeal ---------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GERALD POGER, et al., Appellants, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents, No. ED 103293 (Mo. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Two affirmed in part and reversed, in part, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of all respondents. The appellants, a class of homeowners, filed several claims against the respondents Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), Wood Lake Residents Association (Association), and Community Managers Association, Inc. (CMA), after the Association negotiated with MoDOT for the purchase of a portion of common land in the Wood Lake Subdivision. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding that the Association had the authority to sell the property and that the appellants were estopped from bringing their claims because they accepted the proceeds from the sale. In affirming the trial court's summary judgment, the Court of Appeals of Missouri held that "The Association had authority under the Indenture and the general warranty deeds to sell the Property, and Appellants had no power to sell their interest in the Property independent of a sale of their lots or dwelling units. Appellants similarly had no direct right to receive the proceeds of the sale, except as beneficiaries under the Indenture. Thus, MoDOT did not violate Appellants' rights in purchasing the Property from the Association. Additionally, because Appellants accepted the benefits of the sale as beneficiaries of at least the pool improvement project undertaken by the Association as Trustee, they are estopped from contesting the validity of the sale." However, the appellate court also reversed and remanded the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Association and CMA, stating that "the trial court's summary judgment, as well as the summary judgment record, fail to establish the facts necessary to properly grant summary judgment on Appellants' claims against the Association and CMA as a matter of law." A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 7, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/ywbT4v from Leagle.com. NEWELL BRANDS: Must Update Court on Case Status by June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has directed the parties to provide an update to the court on the status of the federal action by June 30, 2016. A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E. Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross, Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16- CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director defendants, who are directors of Jarden. The Company and its subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II are also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims under Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"); SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of the Company and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information. The parties have entered into a settlement term sheet, pursuant to which the Company added certain disclosures to its Registration Statement on Form S-4. Subject to court approval of the settlement agreement and the lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the shareholder claims will be released, and the defendants will reimburse up to $0.6 million in attorney fees. A second putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E. Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the individually named director defendants, all of whom are directors of Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also named as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with the Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in the merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certain information related to the financial analyses performed by Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger transactions, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Jarden transaction is consummated, an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court that Jarden's individual board members account for all damages allegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the outcome of the above described Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an order staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016, and ordered the parties to provide an update to the court on the status of the federal action by June 30, 2016. Newell Brands is a global marketer of consumer and commercial products that help people get more out of life every day, where they live, learn, work and play. Our products are marketed under a strong portfolio of leading brands, including Sharpie(R), Paper Mate(R), Expo(R), Prismacolor(R), Mr. Sketch(R), Elmer's(R), Parker(R), Waterman(R), Dymo(R), Rubbermaid(R), Contigo(R), Goody(R), Calphalon(R), Irwin(R), Lenox(R), Rubbermaid Commercial Products(R), Graco(R), Aprica(R) and Baby Jogger(R). NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- TO: All Persons and Entities that, During the Period from February 25, 2010 Through February 27, 2014, Inclusive ("Class Period"), Purchased or Otherwise Acquired the Publicly Traded Securities of NII Holdings, Inc. and/or NII Capital Corp. and Who Were Damaged Thereby. The Eligible Securities Are NII Holdings, Inc. Common Stock ("NII Stock") (ISIN: US62913F2011), as Well as the Following Debt Securities ("NII Bonds"): (i) 7.625% NII Bonds, Due April 1, 2021 (ISIN: US67021BAE92); (ii) 8.875% NII Bonds, Due December 15, 2019 (ISIN: US67021BAC37); and (iii) 10% NII Bonds, Due August 15, 2016 (ISIN: US67021BAD10). Certain Persons and Entities are Excluded from the Foregoing Definition of the Class, as set forth in Detail in the Full Notice Mentioned Below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the class set forth above (the "Class"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Danica Pension, Livsforsikringsaktieselskab, Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S, Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers Pension Plan, IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA Funds, and Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (collectively, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants Steven P. Dussek, Steven M. Shindler, and Gokul Hemmady (the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of $41,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 at 10:00 a.m. on September 16, 2016 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (a) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 18, 2016; (c) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any interest earned thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (d) approve Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting the website dedicated to this Action: In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173009 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (866) 905-8128 www.niisecuritieslitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. Mark S. Arisohn, Esq. Serena Hallowell, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com (888) 219-6877 Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 www.ktmc.com (610) 667-7706 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received on or before September 28, 2016. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is received on or before August 26, 2016. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received on or before August 26, 2016. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. DATED: JUNE 13, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NINE ENERGY: "Sams" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ Chad Sams, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nine Energy Service, LLC, Defendant., Case No. 2:16- cv-00533-CG-GBW (D.N.M., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Nine Energy is a nationwide oilfield services company with significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the United States where Sams was employed by Defendant as an operator in their in New Mexico site. He claims to be denied overtime compensation. The Defendants are represented by: Milad K. Farah, Esq. GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC 1231 E Missouri Ave., El Paso, TX 79902 Tel: (915) 533-0880 Fax: (915) 533-1155 Email: mkf@gflawoffices.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap Lindsay R. Itkin FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@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 NORTHERN MONTANA RETIREMENT: "Cleary" Seeks Payment of Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Cleary, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana Hospital, Administrative Committee of the Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana Hospital, John Does 1-10 individually and as members of the Administrative Committee of the Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana Hospital, and Northern Montana Hospital, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00061-BMM (D. Mont., June y, 2016), seeks payment of vested benefits and all other relief under the terms of the retirement plan and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Retirement Plan for Employees of Northern Montana Hospital is an employee benefit plan and an employee pension benefit plan where Joel Cleary, M.D., a resigned physician of the Hospital, participated in the Retirement Plan. He claims that he has been denied certain retirement benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of that Plan with respect to vesting and accrual of benefits. Plaintiff is represented by: Havila Unrein, Esq. 407 Main St. SW, Ste. 1 Ronan, MT 59864 Phone: (406) 281-7231 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: hunrein@kellerrohrback.com PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiff Had Until June 7 to Appeal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Peoples Bancorp Of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiff had until June 7, 2016, to seek review of the ruling by the Court of Appeals. On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleged (i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and (iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees. It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff sought to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals which, on May 3, 2016, in an unanimous opinion, affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit by the Business Court. The Plaintiff had until June 7, 2016 to seek review of the ruling by the Court of Appeals. The Bank continues to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit if appealed. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- No. 14-CV-9662" postmarked no later than July 29, 2016, to: The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding In Re Petrobras Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 14-CV-9662 (JSR) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To: (1) All purchasers who, between January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras ("Petrobras"), including debt securities issued by Petrobras International Finance Company S.A. ("PifCo") and/or Petrobras Global Finance B.V. ("PGF") on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") or pursuant to other domestic transactions (the "Exchange Act Class"); and (2) All purchasers who purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in domestic transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States before Petrobras made generally available to its security holders an earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months beginning after the effective date of the offerings (the "Securities Act Class"). A class action lawsuit is now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") under the above caption (the "Action"). The suit is brought on behalf of investors for alleged violations of the federal securities laws by defendants for purportedly concealing a multi- year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme. Defendants have denied the claims and maintain they are not liable for the injury alleged. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of the pendency of the Action as a class action. You may be a member of the Class whose rights might be affected by this Action. YOUR RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER: If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Petrobras, including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF, on the NYSE or pursuant to other transactions occurring in the United States during the Class Period, or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to August 11, 2014 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in transactions occurring in the United States, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to May 15, 2015 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in transactions occurring in the United States, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States, you are a member of one or both of the Classes. If you choose to remain a member of one or both of the Classes, you do not need to do anything at this time. You will automatically be included in either or both Classes unless you request exclusion in accordance with the procedure set forth below. Your decision is important for the following reasons: If you choose to remain in either or both Classes, you will be bound by all orders and judgments in this Action. Your interests are being represented at no cost to you by the representatives of the Classes and Class Counsel. Class Counsel will be awarded fees and costs only if it succeeds in obtaining a recovery from one or more defendants. You may remain a member of the Classes and elect to be represented by your own counsel at your own expense. If you retain separate counsel, you will be responsible for that counsel's fees and expenses and such counsel must enter an appearance on your behalf by filing a Notice of Appearance with the Court and mailing it to Class Counsel at the address below on or before July 29, 2016. If you exclude yourself from the Class and decide to pursue your own action individually, you may not be able to pursue certain claims due to the lapsing of the statute of limitations, including claims under Section 11 related to the May 13, 2013 offering. If you seek to share in any Class recovery, you will be required to prove your membership in either or both Classes with evidence of (i) your purchases, acquisitions and sales of Petrobras securities (including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF); (ii) that you purchased Petrobras securities in a domestic transaction and suffered resulting damages, and/or (iii) that you purchased such debt securities pursuant to or traceable to one of the registered offerings referenced above. In addition, defendants may seek to prove that you did not rely on the integrity of the market or that you had knowledge of defendants' alleged misrepresentations or omissions. If you choose to be excluded from either or both Classes, you will not be bound by any judgment, nor will you be eligible to share in any recovery that might be obtained in this Action. If you exclude yourself, you may individually pursue any legal rights that you may have against the defendants. To exclude yourself from either or both Classes, you must mail a signed letter by mail stating that you "request exclusion" from either or both of the Classes in "In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-9662" postmarked no later than July 29, 2016, to: Petrobras Securities Litigation, Notice Administrator, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10280, Dublin, OH 43017-5780. Full details on how to be excluded are available at www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This Notice is only a summary of the lawsuit. For more detailed information, including a complete list of defendants and CUSIPS of the debt securities and ADSs involved, you may contact Class Counsel, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016, (212) 661-1100, call the Notice Administrator at (855) 907-3218, or visit http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Rakoffor www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com To get a copy of this notice in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Japanese or Chinese, visit www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE. Dated: May 9, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court for the Southern District of New York PICKVEST: Investors Reject Class Action Settlement Offer -------------------------------------------------------- Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the majority of Pickvest investors seem to reject a settlement offer made by property mogul Nic Georgiou to repay half of their invested capital. In terms of the offer, Georgiou proposes to repay 50% of investors' investments in ten equal installments over a period of nearly three-and-a-half years. This would see investors lose half their capital investments and accrued interest, but would allow them to at least receive a chunk of their investment without having to wait for a (potentially) drawn-out class action lawsuit. The offer is only open to participants of the class action suit. Georgiou also offered to pay the legal fees the investors incurred to participate in the class action suit. The deadline of the offer is September 30. In practice this offer means that an investor who invested R1 million will receive R500 000 in ten equal payments of R50 000 every 126 calendar days. Investors who reject the offer will continue to receive their monthly interest payments of around 2%, or as in the example above, R20 000 a year. The offer was recently made and followed protracted negotiations between Georgiou and the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG), the committee that is driving the class action. Helgard Hancke, one of the members of the HSAG committee, says HSAG could not accept the offer. "Our mandate was to negotiate for the repayment of 100% of the capital. Prior the negotiations we sent a questionnaire to investors and from the responses it was evident that the overwhelming majority of investors wanted a repayment of 100%. The investors also want to be repaid immediately and not over an extended period. Consequently, the HSAG could not support the offer." Many investors echoed this and expressed their dismay with the offer on the HSAG Facebook page. The offer will nonetheless be communicated to investors. Class action suit Mr. Hancke confirmed that the class action suit is still ongoing and that its lawyers are in a process of compiling legal documents to submit to court to have the Article 155 scheme of arrangement rescinded. In May, the South Gauteng High Court (SGHC) ruled that the HSAG may appeal the sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement which paved the way for the class action suit to continue. Moneyweb emailed questions to Georgiou, but he did not respond prior to publication. PITTSBURGH GLASS: Seeks Dismissal of Age Discrimination Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Pittsburgh Glass Works (PGW) has responded to an appeal by former employees who allege age discrimination after they were terminated as a part of a reduction in workforce for the company in 2009. The company says the Third District Court of Appeals should uphold the lower court's decision and the appeal should be dismissed. Former Employees' Appeal In 2009, PGW trimmed approximately 100 employees from its workforce. Rudolph Karlo and several other former employees filed the class action complaint against PGW in 2010 after they were terminated. "On March 31, 2009, appellants, all 50 years of age or older, were terminated by PGW in a company-wide reduction in force (RIF) of its salaried employees in the United States. Appellants sued after determining the RIF had a disparate impact on employees age 50 and older," according to the appeal. The original judge for the District Court conditionally certified the class action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Following discovery, the judge recused herself and the case was reassigned to Judge Terrence F. McVerry. He decertified the class. Attorneys for the appellants say the second District Court judge was wrong by deviating from the original judge's ruling. Though the District Court judge issued a summary judgment in favor of PGW saying the class action could not go forward, he did allow Count 3 of the complaint to proceed to trial at the District Court level. This count included the retaliation claims by Mr. Karlo and former PGW employee Mark McLure. A U.S. District Court jury found that PGW "willfully and unlawfully retaliated against a former employee in violation of the Age Discrimination Employee Act (ADEA)." The jury awarded Mr. Karlo $922,060. Former employee McLure, who also complained of retaliation by the company, entered a settlement with the company. PGW Responds PGW argues that the named plaintiffs were not similarly situated to any former employees who opted in to the case. The named plaintiffs were part of the same group, had similar positions, and worked for the same manager who included them in the March 2009 reduction-in-force, according to court documents. The opt-in plaintiffs had different job titles, duties, locations and decision-makers who used different procedures in selecting employees for the reduction-in-force, according to PGW. PGW further says the expert testimony introduced by the plaintiffs was flawed and unreliable, therefore it was rightly discarded by the lower court. "Plaintiffs were unable to present any evidence of a retained employee who was similarly situated and sufficiently younger than any plaintiff," according to the court documents. The District Court reviewed the record and determined that plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law, PGW says. As such, the lower court's ruling should be upheld. PLY GEM: Updates on Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement --------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement. In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows. MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the warranty period for the applicable window. On December 29, 2014, the District Court granted final approval of this settlement, as well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million, issuing a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Approval Order"). A notice of appeal of the Final Approval Order (the "Appeal") was given by certain objectors to the settlement, and on May 6, 2015, MW entered into a settlement agreement with, among others, the objectors to fully and finally resolve their claims, including the dismissal of Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., another lawsuit seeking class certification with respect to MW's vinyl clad windows, making the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement final and binding on the parties. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlements and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these matters. As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company recognized a $5.0 million expense during the year ended December 31, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) in the Company's Windows and Doors segment. It is possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently expects that the total net cost will not exceed $5.0 million. As of April 2, 2016, approximately $1.5 million of this liability is currently outstanding with $0.7 million as a current liability within accrued expenses and $0.8 million as a noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet. PLY GEM: Petition for Appeal in "Pagliaroni" Case Denied -------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied this petition for appeal in the case by Anthony Pagliaroni. In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The hearing regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on March 10, 2015, and the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on September 22, 2015. On October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April 12, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied this petition for appeal. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the future. PLY GEM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Underway --------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, the District Court has not yet ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint. In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO. It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material information which was required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13, 2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss this amended complaint. The District Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of such directors and officers. "We believe the purported federal securities class action is without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit," the Company said. PLY GEM: Damages in "Carrillo-Hueso" Suit Not Yet Quantified ------------------------------------------------------------ Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the damages sought in the action by Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong have not yet been quantified. In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants' failure to provide (i) statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. PLY GEM: Damages in "Morgan" Suit Not Yet Quantified ---------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the damages sought in the action by Tina Morgan have not yet been quantified. In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i) pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks, (iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Obtained Summary Judgment in "Ciganek" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WILLIAM CIGANEK, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV- 03837-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA), Hunt & Henriques, Michael Scott Hunt, and Janalie Ann Henriques. Judge Koh also vacated the case management conference set for June 9, 2016. The putative class action case was brought by William Ciganek, Jr. for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Judge Koh, however, found that the defendants' use of the Marin Declaration did not violate the FDCPA. The Marin Declaration described Ciganek's unpaid credit account and was signed by PRA employee Maria Marin. A full-text copy of Judge Koh's June 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/PV1bao from Leagle.com. William Ciganek, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Fred W. Schwinn, Consumer Law Center, Inc.. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Hunt & Henriques, Michael Scott Hunt, Janalie Ann Henriques, Defendants, represented by Tomio Buck Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP, Jeffrey A. Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP & Jennifer Lawdan Yazdi -- jyazdi@snllp.com -- Simmonds and Narita LLP. PRIDE TRANSPORT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on June 13 disclosed that it filed a truck driver class action lawsuit against Pride Transport, Inc. alleging that the transportation company failed to correctly pay their California truck drivers for all their non-driving time, including time spent working when they were not driving the company's trucks. The Pride Transport truck driver wage class action is currently pending in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Case No. 16CV01337. The wage class action filed against Pride Transport, Inc. by the San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik claims that trucking company allegedly failed to have a company wide policy that gave their Golden State truck drivers full off-duty thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods in accordance with California law. The Pride Transport truck driver class action claims that the failure to provide thirty minute meal breaks is allegedly evidenced by Pride Transport's business records. The class action lawsuit also claims that Pride Transport truck drivers were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis. The class action claims that the truck drivers were allegedly not paid all minimum wages because the Complaint claims the drivers were only paid while driving. The class action claims that the truck drivers should have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving tasks. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, San Francisco County and Chicago, Illinois. The firm represents employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, truck driver claims, and other types of illegal workplace conduct. QUALITY CONSULTING: "Todd" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- David Todd, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quality Consulting and Security Services, Inc. and Chris A. Vaughan, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00494 (E.D. Tex., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages as well as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides consulting and security services to businesses throughout Texas where Todd worked as a security guard. Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq. Mary L. Scott, Esq. James E. Hunnicutt, Esq. SPENCER SCOTT PLLC Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75240-6271 Tel: (972) 458-5319 Fax: (972) 770-2156 Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com mscott@spencerscottlaw.com jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com RED RABBIT: "Torres" Seeks to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Nestor Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Red Rabbit, LLC, and Rhys Wayne Powell, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04245 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread of hours pay and statutory penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the the New York Labor Law. Red Rabbit provides school meals for over 150 schools in the New York City area where Plaintiff was employed as porter, food buyer and cook. Powell owns Red Rabbit. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 RP FIELD: Representative Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------- Bohrer Brady, LLC on June 13 disclosed that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a field representative against RP Field Services, LLC and National Creditors Connection, Inc., alleging the companies failed to pay federally mandated overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. The lawsuit seeks class certification on behalf of all former and current field representatives who were allegedly not paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in workweek. The field representative is represented by Bohrer Brady, LLC. RP Field Services, LLC and National Creditors Connection, Inc. are field contact service producers. RP Field Services, LLC claims to be an exclusive regional vendor of National Creditors Connection, Inc. Field representatives make contact with debtors who are in arrears in order to deliver collection material, instigate calls between the debtor and the companies and photograph collateral that is the subject of the debt. The lawsuit claims that RP Field Services, LLC and National Creditors Connection, Inc. have misclassified field representatives as independent contractors in an attempt to avoid payment of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The FLSA requires most employers in the United States to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay at one and one-half times the regular pay rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, interest and costs. Plaintiff is represented by Philip Bohrer and Scott Brady -- scott@bohrerbrady.com -- from Bohrer Brady, LLC, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The case is entitled Zeno v. RP Field Services, LLC and National Creditors Connection, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-01136 and is filed in the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. ROFIN-SINAR: Faces Merger-Related Litigation in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. on March 16, 2016, entered into a Merger Agreement with Coherent, Inc. ("Coherent") and Rembrandt Merger Sub Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coherent ("Merger Sub") providing for, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, the acquisition of the Company by Coherent at a price of $32.50 per share, without interest (the "Merger Consideration"), through the Merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coherent. Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action was filed on April 8, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan against the Company, our directors, Coherent and Merger Sub. On behalf of all public stockholders, Plaintiff alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors and aiding and abetting of such breaches by the Company and Coherent. Plaintiff's claims arise out of the approval by the directors of the Merger Agreement, together with allegations that the consideration to be paid to the stockholders in the Proposed Transaction is inadequate. To date, the Company has not been served with the lawsuit. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that additional complaints containing similar claims may be filed in the same or other courts, naming the same or additional defendants. The Company's By-Laws require stockholders bringing such claims to file them in Chancery Court of Delaware, absent written consent from the Company. The Company has not provided such consent with respect to the foregoing matter. In addition, the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and By- laws provide for indemnification of the Company's officers and directors in this type of litigation to the extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law, and the Company maintains a directors' and officers' liability insurance policy. ROTUNDA CONDOMINIUMS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Reyes" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned NICOLE REYES ET AL., v. JULIA PLACE CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. ET AL., SECTION: "J" (3), Civil Action No. 12-2043 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl J. Barbier granted a second motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, The Rotunda Condominiums Homeowners Association Inc. Judge Barbier concluded that "all claims against Rotunda asserted in this lawsuit have been eliminated. The Court's class definitions exclude Rotunda completely based on the Court's previous finding that Rotunda did not collect usurious fees within the two-year period. In addition, the Court's previous rulings eliminated the claims against Rotunda under the [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] and [Louisiana Condominium Act]. Thus, no claims against Rotunda remain. Accordingly, Rotunda is entitled to summary judgment." A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's June 7, 2016 order and reasons is available at https://is.gd/9WFTOy from Leagle.com. The class action lawsuit was brought by Nicole Reyes and Mike Sobel on behalf of themselves and other condominium owners at various properties throughout New Orleans against their respective condominium associations as well as Steeg Law LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in debt collection practices that violate state and federal law. Nicole Reyes, Patrick Andras, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd G. Crawford -- tcrawford@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez, George J. Fowler, III -- fow@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez & John Steven Garner -- jgarner@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez. Mike Sobel, Plaintiff, represented by Todd G. Crawford, Fowler Rodriguez & John Steven Garner, Fowler Rodriguez. MESA Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paula Marcello Wellons -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Jonathan B. Womack -- jwomack@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Mills Row Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Carondelet Place Condominiums Owners Association, Inc., Gallery Row Condominiums Association, Inc., Henderson Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Roussel -- elizabeth.roussel@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP & Justin Boron - - justin.boron@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP. Lofts Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by John William Waters, Jr., Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O'Bannon, Ernest Lynwood O'Bannon, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O'Bannon & Kristin Grace Mosely-Jones, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O'Bannon. FQRV Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by Warren Horn -- whorn@hellerdraper.com -- Heller, Draper, Hayden, Patrick & Horn, LLC & Heather Cheesbro, Heller, Draper, Patrick & Horn, LLC. Steeg Law, LLC, Margaret V Glass, Defendant, represented by William Everard Wright, Jr. -- wwright@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Andrew Joseph Baer -- abaer@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Judy Lynn Burnthorn -- jburnthorn@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Julia Place Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ethan N. Penn, Musgrave, McLachlan & Penn, LLC & Amanda Huling Aucoin, Musgrave, McLachlan & Penn, LLC. Parkview Condominiums Homeowners Association, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Duplantier, Jr., Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith,Benjamin D. Reichard, Fishman Haygood, Carlina C. Eiselen, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Loretta G. Mince, Fishman Haygood. Magazine Place Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald Carl Hodge, Jr., Law Office of Donald C. Hodge, Jr.. 1750 Saint Charles Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Roussel, Adams & Reese, LLP & Justin Boron, Adams & Reese, LLP. FQRV Condominium Association, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by James P. Doherty, III, Frederick Law Firm. Property One Inc, Movant, represented by Richard A. Aguilar, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Gabriel A. Crowson, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Must Face Misdemeanor Probationers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Stockard, writing for Murfreesboro Post, reports that a federal judge is rejecting defenses by Rutherford County and Providence Community Corrections in their efforts to have a case dismissed involving a scheme allegedly designed to extort money from misdemeanor probationers. In a June 9 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Sharp found the county and PCC "cannot shield" themselves from the lawsuit brought by probationers based on its arguments, nor does a "group pleading" undermine the allegations brought by the plaintiffs, a group of people caught in the county's former probation services system. Judge Sharp did find allegations against three individuals who worked for PCC were insufficient and that expiration of the contract between the county and PCC at the end of March renders some of the plaintiffs' claims moot. The judge ultimately ruled, however, arrests of probationers based solely on nonpayment of fines and fees, without regard to their ability to pay or whether they willfully avoided paying, will be limited to an argument in the Fourth Amendment and, "Plaintiffs' claims remain otherwise intact." Filed in October 2015 by Washington, D.C.-based Equal Justice Under Law, the class action lawsuit contends probationers were "victims of an extortion scheme" perpetrated by Rutherford County and PCC. The lawsuit argues indigent probationers were caught in a system designed to "extract" as much money from them as possible "through a pattern of illegal and shocking behavior," often keeping them on probation for years and paying thousands of dollars in fines and fees, even after they pay the initial costs. The judge previously ordered the release of jail inmates who were arrested solely because of their inability to pay fines and fees assessed by the courts and the private probation company. The county and PCC are challenging that ruling in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge's previous order also prohibits the county from executing arrest warrants for probation violations including preset bond conditions that require probationers to pay for release from custody. Rutherford County began contracting with PCC several years ago because it had a large number of outstanding fees it couldn't collect from people convicted of misdemeanors in General Sessions Court. After the lawsuit's filing, PCC ended probation services in Rutherford County, and county commissioners opted to set up a county-run department to oversee some 3,200 probationers. The judge decided the end of the contract between PCC and the county would affect some of the complaints in the lawsuit but that it would not end the litigation. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Suit Stayed Against Non-Debtors ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma extended to the non-debtor defendants the Section 362 automatic stay of the consolidated class action against Sandridge Energy, Inc., and stayed the case in its entirety pending the resolution of SandRidge's bankruptcy. The consolidated case is BARTON GERNANDT, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants; CHRISTINA A. CUMMINGS, on behalf of the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan, herself, and alternatively, a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants; RICHARD A. MCWILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-15-834-D, Consolidated with Case No. CIV- 15-892-D., CIV-15-1001-D (W.D. Okla.). A full-text copy of Judge DeGiusti's June 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/bA5Olr from Leagle.com. Barton Gernandt, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Jason E Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, Tanner W Hicks -- tanner@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, Donna S Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Edward W Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Emmanuel E Edem, Norman & Edem PLLC, James A Maro, Jr. -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Julie Eve Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Mark K Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Robert I Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP & Tanya Korkhov -- tkorkhov@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP. Christina A Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Emmanuel E Edem, Norman & Edem PLLC, L Mark Bonner, Norman & Edem PLLC, Michael Jason Klein -- mklein@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody, Tanner W Hicks -- tanner@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius PLLC & Mark K Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. Richard A McWilliams, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M Delluomo, Delluomo & Crow, Tanner W Hicks, Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, Mark K Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Daniel M Delluomo, Delluomo & Crow, Mark K Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Tanner W Hicks, Mattingly & Roselius PLLC. Joe L. Rayos, Plaintiff, represented by Tanner W Hicks, Mattingly & Roselius PLLC & Mark K Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. Sandridge Energy Inc, Stephen C Beasley, Jim J Brewer, Everett R Dobson, William A Gilliland, Daniel W Jordan, Edward W Moneypenny, Roy T Oliver, Jr, Jeffrey S Serota, J Michael Stice, Alan J Weber, Dan A Westbrook, Mary L Whitson, Robert Scott Griffin, Cindy Green, The Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee of Sandridge Energy Inc, The Investment Committee of Sandridge Energy Inc, Defendants, represented by Alexander K Talarides, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Brandon P Long, McAfee & Taft, Kenneth P Herzinger, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice, M Todd Scott, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Mark D Spencer, McAfee & Taft & Michael F Lauderdale, McAfee & Taft. Tom L Ward, Defendant, represented by Alexander K Talarides, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Christopher J Fawal, Latham & Watkins, George S Corbyn, Jr., Corbyn Hampton PLLC, James C Word, Latham & Watkins, Kenneth P Herzinger, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice, M Todd Scott, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Margaret A Tough, Latham & Watkins &Steven M Bauer, Latham & Watkins. James D Bennett, Defendant, represented by Alexander K Talarides, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Brandon P Long, McAfee & Taft, Kenneth P Herzinger, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice, Mark D Spencer, McAfee & Taft & Michael F Lauderdale, McAfee & Taft. Reliance Trust Company, Defendant, represented by Ann W Ferebee, Bryan Cave, Grant M Lucky, Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PC, John R Bielema, Jr., Bryan Cave, Michael P Carey, Bryan Cave, Patrick M Ryan, Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PC & William B Brockman, Bryan Cave. Eddie M LeBlanc, Defendant, represented by Kenneth P Herzinger, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. About SandRidge Energy SandRidge Energy, Inc. (OTC PINK: SDOC) -- http://www.sandridgeenergy.com/-- is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with its principal focus on developing high-return, growth-oriented projects in the U.S. Mid-Continent and Niobrara Shale. SandRidge Energy, Inc. and 24 of its subsidiaries each filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 16-32488) on May 16, 2016. The petitions were signed by Julian M. Bott as chief financial officer. The Debtors have hired Kirkland & Ellis LLP as general bankruptcy counsel, Zack A. Clement PLLC as local counsel, Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. as financial advisor, Alvarez & Marsal Holdings, LLC as restructuring advisor and Prime Clerk LLC as claims and noticing agent. The cases are assigned to Judge David R Jones. SELECT COMFORT: "Azimpour" Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------- Select Comfort Corporation intends to defend against the case by Saeid Azimpour, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleges that the price he paid for the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the California unfair competition law, violation of the California false advertising law and violation of the California remedies act. Plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who "purchased one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a discount from the original retail price at any time between December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees. We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend this case. SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: No Motion to Certify Class Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no motion to certify a class has been filed in the "Weller" securities action. On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). In connection with the mandatory lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), various law firms issued press releases between July 2015 and September 2015 to search for additional shareholders that would be willing to serve as lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit. This solicitation period ended on September 29, 2015 and no other shareholders came forward, leaving only the named plaintiff as the sole shareholder seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The court appointed Weller a lead plaintiff on October 21, 2015. At this time, no motion to certify a class has been filed. The Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will vigorously defend itself against such claims. SKULLCANDY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate 2 Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------- Skullcandy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 12, 2016, an alleged shareholder filed a putative securities class action complaint against the Company and certain Company officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, captioned Davis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv- 00121-RJS. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016. It asserts that the Company and certain officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false or misleading statements concerning positioning and expectations for future growth. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. On March 28, 2016, an alleged shareholder filed a substantially similar putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, captioned Oswald v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00246-CW. The Oswald Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May 5, 2015 and January 11, 2016. Plaintiffs have requested that the court consolidate the two complaints. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. SURFSTITCH: Melbourne Law Firm Mulls Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Financial Review reports that Melbourne law firm Gadens has urged aggrieved major shareholders in SurfStitch to provide details about private briefings with the board and senior management as it investigates whether to launch a $500 million class action claim. Gadens partner and chief counsel Glenn McGowan QC -- glenn.mcgowan@gadens.com -- wants to know what SurfStitch chairman Howard McDonald told shareholders in a series of private briefings the week before the company warned that earnings could fall 61 per cent. While some shareholders complained at the time the board had been on "radio silence", Mr. McDonald told Chanticleer on April 29 he had had 30 briefings with shareholders in the past week, including four alone that afternoon. SurfStitch shares fell from $1.22 to $1.03 that week on the average volumes -- attracting the attention of the Australian Securities Exchange -- before dropping 53 per cent to 48› when SurfStitch finally issued a profit warning on May 3. Mr. McGowan believes SurfStitch may have breached its continuous disclosure obligations and failed to keep all shareholders properly informed of what was going on at the former market darling after former chief executive Justin Cameron resigned unexpectedly in March, triggering a chain of events that wiped almost $500 million off the company's market value. "I can't think of reasons why private briefings to shareholders are ever justified -- if you need to brief shareholders you need to inform the markets," Mr. McGowan told The Australian Financial Review on June 13. "There's a reasonable amount of anger on the part of the shareholders I've been in touch with," he said. "They seem to think they have not been looked after." Mr. McGowan hopes that major shareholders who participated in the private briefings will come forward with details about what was discussed, saying: "I don't think there's any downside for them, it's not as if they were colluding." A SurfStitch spokeswoman said the company declined to comment on the potential class action or the issue of selective briefings, which are banned by the corporate regulator. Mr. McGowan is also looking into deficiencies in SurfStitch's December 2014 prospectus and whether the online surf and action sports retailer should have warned investors it planned to embark on an aggressive acquisition spree. During 2015 SurfStitch outlaid more than $80 million in cash and shares on non-core acquisitions, including Stab, an online surf content platform, Magicseaweed, a user-generated surfing network, Garage Entertainment, which makes surfing videos, and surfboard manufacturer Surf Hardware International. Co-founders Justin Cameron and Lex Pedersen wanted SurfStitch to become the Amazon Prime of the action sports market, using unique content to attract customers. However, problems integrating the acquisitions have contributed to the retailer's problems. "It's one thing to say generally they want to expand and another to go on a spending binge the way they did," Mr. McGowan said. After reviewing one content sharing agreement in the wake of Mr. Cameron's departure, SurfStitch was forced to reverse $20.3 million in revenues and issue its third profit downgrade in six months, forecasting an $18 million EBITDA loss. Morgan Stanley analyst John Stavliotis said in a note on June 10 the circumstances behind the revenue reversal raised concerns about SurfStitch's previously reported accounts. "The company has guided for a return to profitability in 2017 and positive cashflows, but we have no confidence that this can be achieved in view of the poor performance and lack of evidence that this online retailer can make money," said Mr. Stavliotis, who has forecast net losses of $18.7 million this year and $7.8 million in 2017. Mr. McGowan has urged current and past SurfStitch shareholders to register their interest in participating in a class action claim, which would seek to recover funds from the company's insurers. SHELL OIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a former well site foreman has filed suit against an oil company alleging he was not paid overtime. James Reynolds filed a complaint on behalf of others similarly situated on May 6 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas against Shell Oil Co. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between May 2011 and July 2015, he worked for more than 40 hours per workweek but was not paid any overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest at the highest applicable rate, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. He is represented by Richard J. (Rex) Burch of Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 4:16-cv-01276 SOTHEBY'S: "Graham" Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal -------------------------------------------------- Sotheby's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the case, Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc., indicated that they will appeal a district court decision that granted Sotheby's motion to dismiss the remaining claims. Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling. On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of California. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 11, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the district court granted Sotheby's motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the action, which relate to sales that occurred in California. The plaintiffs have indicated that they will appeal this decision. SPIRIT AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Credit Card Data Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that Spirit Airlines is known for low base prices and a lot of extras you can buy, like paying for checked baggage or getting a premium seat. And if you used a credit card at an airport kiosk to buy them, a class action settlement could mean up to $1,000 for you. The allegation is that receipts had too many digits of the card number. Government rules that no more than five can be listed. They want to make sure consumers aren't at risk for losing sensitive data. Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com said the lawsuit settlement is for incidents after August 29, 2012. STERICYCLE INC: Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a class action complaint in Pennsylvania. The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief." "The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or "whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed. "Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. "On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to strongly contest the Motion. "We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits." Stericycle is a business-to-business services provider with a focus on regulated and compliance solutions for healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses. SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Settlement Conference Scheduled in May --------------------------------------------------------- Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a settlement conference was scheduled for May 13, 2016 to confirm a class action settlement. On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana. The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"), the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC, Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees. The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement or via a court hearing. The Company has agreed with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the remaining insurance deductible. The parties have agreed to a settlement of all claims based on the Form 8-k that was filed prior to the closing on the transaction and which shared additional information related to it. There was a settlement conference scheduled for May 13, 2016 to confirm settlement. The Company does not believe this will have a significant impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. * * * On May 2, 2016, RoundTable Healthcare Partners ("RoundTable"), a private equity firm focused exclusively on the healthcare industry, announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Symmetry Surgical Inc. for a total equity value of roughly $140.3 million. Symmetry, based in Nashville, TN, is a marketer of reusable, reposable and single-use surgical instrumentation and specialty devices. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the late second or early third quarter. See https://is.gd/NuXC3C TACO BELL: Expert's Analysis on Fee Award Critical, Court Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stanley A. Boone found that the analysis of the defendant's expert will be helpful in determining the reasonableness of the award of attorney fees requested by the plaintiffs in the case captioned IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07-cv- 01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.). The plaintiffs have submitted a motion requesting attorney fees and costs of approximately seven million dollars. The defendants have filed an opposition which contains the declaration of Andre E. Jardini who analyzed the reasonableness of the requested fees. The plaintiffs then sought to depose the defendants' expert. In an order dated June 7, 2016, a full-text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/AjEJdE from Leagle.com, Judge Boone ruled as follows: -- denying the plaintiffs' ex parte application for an order continuing the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees -- denying the plaintiffs' request for leave to depose Andre E. Jardini -- denying the plaintiffs' request in the alternative to strike the declaration of Andre E. Jardini -- denying the plaintiffs' motion to defer ruling on the motion for attorney fees -- granting the plaintiffs' request to file an oversized reply, which shall not exceed 15 pages and which shall be filed on or before June 10, 2016. Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jennifer Renee Bagosy -- jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law Group, Jonathan Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Monica Balderrama -- mbalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- Initiative Legal Group APC, Raul Perez -- raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat -- rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler & Matthew Thomas Theriault -- matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Capstone Law Group & Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC. Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Timothy Donahue, Law Offices Of Timothy Donahue. Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee, Capstone Law APC, Marc Primo Pulisci, Initiative Legal Group LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC & Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC. Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth H. Yoon,Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Peter M. Hart, Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group. Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase, LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC & Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC. Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle, Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich,Mark Yablonovich, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich & Patrick Joseph Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich. Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., Defendants, represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton & Tracey Adano Kennedy -- tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. TEAM HEALTH: Opposition to Fee Application Due June 30 ------------------------------------------------------ Team Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and the other former defendants in a consolidated class action have until June 30, 2016, to file any opposition to plaintiffs' application for the payment of their attorneys' fees and expenses. On August 14, 2015, prior to the closing of the IPC Transaction, a purported shareholder of IPC filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Smukler v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on behalf of a purported class of IPC shareholders. The lawsuit names as defendants IPC, each of its directors at the time the merger with the Company was announced (the Individual Defendants), the Company, and Intrepid Merger Sub, Inc. (Sub). The August 14, 2015 complaint alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of IPC to its shareholders, failing to value IPC properly, and taking steps to avoid competitive bidding by alternate potential acquirers. The complaint also alleged that IPC, the Company, and Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The complaint sought, among other things, certification of the action as a class action; injunctive relief enjoining the merger; an accounting of all damages purportedly suffered by the plaintiff and the class (including rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class); and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. On August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting similar claims and allegations to those in the Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar relief on behalf of the same putative class. Crescente v. Singer, et al. (Case No. 11405-CB). Additionally, on August 19, 2015, prior to the closing of the IPC Transaction, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California in Los Angeles County. Khemthong v. IPC Healthcare Networks, Inc., et al. (No. BC 591953). The lawsuit asserted similar claims and allegations to those in the Smukler lawsuit and sought similar relief on behalf of the same putative class. On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the suit without prejudice, and on August 28, 2015, the court entered an order granting that request. Pursuant to a September 11, 2015 order from the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Consolidation Order), the Smukler and Crescente actions were consolidated, and all further litigation relating to or arising out of the Company's merger with IPC were directed to be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Case No. 11392-CB) (the Consolidated Action). On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC Healthcare, Inc. (Case. No. 11516-CB) was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, such action is required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions. On September 18, 2015, a verified consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Consolidated Action (the Consolidated Complaint). The Consolidated Complaint alleges substantially the same breaches of fiduciary duty as the August 14, 2015 complaint in the Smukler action, and additionally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their duty of disclosure by failing to disclose to IPC shareholders all material information necessary for them to evaluate the merger. On October 2, 2015, the defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On November 6, 2015, the Company and the other defendants in the Consolidated Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action providing for the settlement and the release of all claims that were or could have been brought against the Company and the other defendants in the Consolidated Action based upon a duty arising under Delaware law to disclose or not omit material information in connection with the IPC Transaction, upon entry of a final order by the Delaware Court of Chancery approving the settlement. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplated that, subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement. Following a series of rulings by the Court of Chancery in other lawsuits challenging mergers, the Company and the other defendants in the Consolidated Action agreed with the plaintiffs that the Memorandum of Understanding would be superseded and replaced by the voluntary dismissal of the Consolidated Action on the basis that it was mooted by the disclosures contained in the Current Report on the Form 8-K that the Company filed with the SEC on November 6, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs' request to voluntarily dismiss the Consolidated Action as moot and setting a briefing schedule for plaintiffs to make an application to the Court for the payment of their attorneys' fees and expenses. This schedule provides that plaintiffs must make any such application by May 19, 2016, that the Company and the other former defendants in the Consolidated Action shall file any opposition to such application by June 30, 2016, and that plaintiffs shall file any reply papers by July 14, 2016. TELEXFREE INC: Scam Participants Ordered to Return Money -------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Eckelbecker, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reports that Jose Arantes Neto was working as a cleaner in 2012 when his boss offered him a business opportunity: Make money promoting an internet telephone service. Mr. Neto watched a YouTube video for instructions, then started posting online advertisements for the company. "Soon I started to notice that the more advertisements I posted, the more money I made," he said, in a filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. It all came crashing down in 2014, however, when TelexFree Inc. of Marlboro collapsed amid state and federal allegations that the business was actually an illegal pyramid scheme. Mr. Neto's boss, Carlos N. Wanzeler of Northboro, a principal in TelexFree, fled to his native Brazil. Now, Mr. Neto and thousands of other people worldwide who allegedly made it to the profitable top of the pyramid are facing a bankruptcy court official's demand that they pay back what they gained, so funds can go to those who lost money on TelexFree. Some are protesting the class action lawsuit, saying they never made as much money as claimed by bankruptcy trustee Stephen Darr. "It appears from the records that the funds were paid to the people," said Wendy M. Mead, a Worcester lawyer representing seven defendants facing claims they were "net winners" in the scheme. "The reality is that there was very little cash these defendants received." Since its collapse, TelexFree has become the focus of sprawling civil, criminal and bankruptcy cases that have touched people across the globe. Up to 1.9 million people worldwide may have participated in TelexFree, and the company allegedly took in about $340 million while promising to pay out more than $5 billion, according to bankruptcy documents. Prosecutors say most of the revenue came from people who paid to promote TelexFree, mostly by placing online advertisements on websites. James M. Merrill, a principal in the business with Mr. Wanzeler, is confined to his Ashland home awaiting trial in October on federal fraud charges. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. As of early 2015, federal authorities had seized cash, bank accounts and other TelexFree assets valued at about $100 million. Mr. Darr, aided by lawyers and forensic accountants tasked with analyzing TelexFree's voluminous computer records, is looking for more funds and estimates about 15,000 U.S. residents received more from TelexFree than they paid in. Another 78,000 people outside the country may be net winners, according to Mr. Darr. Recovering money that a bankrupt business or company fraudulently transferred before filing for relief is one of the standard actions open to trustees, but trustees do have to prove the transfer happened, said Kevin McGee, a business and bankruptcy lawyer in the Worcester firm of Matuzek & McGee. "They would have to show a cancelled check, that's the most common way to show it, or some bank record or some sort of receipt," Mr. McGee said. TelexFree's workings are particularly complicated because participants could buy into it by paying other participants. Defendants in the class action lawsuit have limited access to TelexFree records so far, and many don't speak English and are frightened, according to Ms. Mead. Some made money, mostly in the low "tens of thousands" of dollars, she said, but some are also modestly employed. "Somebody who makes pizzas in Chelsea does not have $2.5 million to settle claims," she said. Mr. Neto, who allegedly made a net profit of $2.6 million on TelexFree, has filed his own response to the trustee's lawsuit. It includes what he says are 2013 tax returns showing he made far less than $2.6 million. In his court filing, he said he recruited 24 other people into TelexFree, and put most of what he gained back into the company. The rest went to family and daily expenses. "Now, I still pay rent to live," his filing states. When contacted by telephone, Mr. Neto put a woman on the line who said he did not want to speak about TelexFree. Court papers list his address in Worcester, but people at that home say he no longer lives there. Rosane Cruz of Worcester also denies receiving the $819,327 she allegedly gained. A Brazilian immigrant, she said she once worked for Mr. Wanzeler, and got into TelexFree in December 2012. "The entire Brazilian community, they were not only talking about it, they were in TelexFree," she said. She eventually quit her job in child care and devoted her time to promoting TelexFree and helping others promote it, she said. She rented hotel rooms, she said, for meetings to speak to others about TelexFree, and showed people how to use the telephone service and how to place the advertisements. Much of the revenue she earned, expressed in the TelexFree system as "credits," got plowed back into TelexFree, she said. In addition, she said, she always believed TelexFree was a legitimate business. At the end, Ms. Cruz said, she had about $140,000 in credits in her TelexFree account, money that would have funded her retirement. Now she fears she could lose her home near Worcester's Grant Square. "This is absurd. This is craziness," Ms. Cruz said. "How am I going to say that I didn't make that money?" THERANOS INC: Walgreens Ends Partnership Amid Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Siconolfi, Christopher Weaver and John Carreyrou, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that drugstore operator Walgreen Co. formally ended a strained alliance with Theranos Inc. as regulators near a decision on whether to impose sanctions against the embattled Silicon Valley firm. Some officials at the Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. unit had grown frustrated at not getting more details and documentation from Theranos after learning it had corrected tens of thousands of blood tests, including many performed on samples collected from patients at Walgreens pharmacies, according to people familiar with the partnership. In a news release on June 12, Walgreens said it had told Theranos it was terminating their nearly three-year-old partnership, effective immediately, and that it was shutting down Theranos lab- testing services in Walgreens locations. It said it would work over the next several days to help transition its customers. "In light of the voiding of a number of test results, and as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has rejected Theranos's plan of correction and considers sanctions, we have carefully considered our relationship with Theranos and believe it is in our customers' best interests to terminate our partnership," Brad Fluegel, Walgreens' senior vice president and chief healthcare commercial market development officer, said in a statement. The move is a significant blow to Theranos. The 40 Theranos blood-draw sites inside Walgreens stores in Arizona, which the company calls "wellness centers," have been the primary source of revenue for Theranos and its conduit to consumers, analysts say. The tie-up also has given the blood-testing firm a stamp of credibility since it was publicly announced in September 2013. Walgreens leaders decided to end the partnership after regulators disclosed problems at Theranos in late January, but held off on finalizing the separation because the company feared Theranos might sue, said people familiar with the matter. Without Walgreens, Theranos would no longer be competing with major labs. To regain its access to consumers, it would have to forge a new retail partnership, offer its blood-testing services directly to more doctors' offices or open its own blood-draw sites, among other options. It already has moved to open a blood- testing center in Arizona. Recently, the company has been exploring a tie-up with another pharmacy or supermarket, according to a person familiar with the matter. Michael Polzin, a Walgreens spokesman, declined to comment beyond the news release. Theranos spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said, "Quality and safety are our top priorities, and we are working closely with government officials to ensure that we not only comply with all federal regulations but exceed them." Ms. Buchanan added, "We are disappointed that Walgreens has chosen to terminate our relationship and remain fully committed to our mission to provide patients access to affordable health information and look forward to continuing to serve customers in Arizona and California through our retail locations." CMS, the agency that inspected Theranos's Newark, Calif., lab last fall, will inform Theranos in roughly the next two weeks about its determination on sanctions, said a person familiar with the matter. A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment In recent days, some Walgreens officials became more convinced that Theranos would face painful CMS sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter. The agency previously said it had found major deficiencies at the California lab, including at least one it said posed an immediate threat to patients. It proposed in a March letter closing the laboratory down and barring Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes from the industry for at least two years. "Due to the comprehensive nature of the corrective measures we've taken over the past several months, which has been affirmed by several experts, we are hopeful that CMS won't impose sanctions," Theranos's Ms. Buchanan has said. "But if they do, we will work with CMS to address all of their concerns." Senior Walgreens officials believe that any significant sanctions would give them a defense if Theranos were to sue Walgreens for breach of contract, people familiar with the matter said. Top Walgreens leaders previously worried they could face litigation seeking massive damages if they unilaterally closed Theranos's testing sites at their Arizona stores, according to people with knowledge of the thinking inside Walgreens. Walgreens managers also grew increasingly frustrated in recent weeks with Theranos as they sought information about the extent of test reports it had corrected or voided. The drugstores' senior leadership team learned Theranos had told regulators it was voiding or correcting tens of thousands of reports in mid-April. In early May, Walgreens asked Theranos to provide details of the corrected reports, according to people familiar with matter. Theranos told Walgreens the corrections were part of the normal process of coming back into compliance with regulators and only involved tests performed in the California lab, according to people familiar with the matter. On May 18, The Wall Street Journal reported that Theranos had voided all results for tests run on its proprietary Edison device in 2014 and 2015, and that it had also corrected some blood coagulation tests performed in a second laboratory it operates in Scottsdale, Ariz. Since then, Theranos hasn't provided Walgreens some specific information and documentation about blood tests voided for its customers, including which specific customers and tests, according to a person familiar with the matter. The issue is important because any erroneous results could throw off health decisions patients make with their doctors. Theranos has said it voided the tests out of an abundance of caution, and doesn't think any patients were affected. In recent weeks, Walgreens also was named as a co-defendant in one of three civil lawsuits filed by consumers against Theranos. The suits, which seek class-action status, allege that Theranos misled the public about the nature and accuracy of its blood-testing technology. Walgreens declined to comment. Theranos said the suits are without merit and that it would vigorously defend itself against them. Current and former Walgreens officials say Theranos veiled its technology and operations in secrecy from the early days of the relationship between the two companies. Some of the officials said Theranos told Walgreens' team it could accurately perform dozens of tests on just a drop of blood using its proprietary testing system, the Journal reported in late May. The company later told regulators it had performed just 12 tests using the device and that by late last summer, it used conventional devices made by companies like Siemens AG to perform all of its tests. In exiting the partnership, Walgreens doesn't expect to recoup its investment of at least $50 million in Theranos, according to people familiar with the thinking of some officials at the drugstore chain. TILE SHOP: Court Rules on Discovery in Retirement Fund Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYERS RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 16-mc-80062-JSC, 16-mc-80076 JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel and denied the defendants' motion to compel Gotham City Research, LLC's compliance with third-party subpoenas. The discovery dispute arose out of a putative securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit following the publication of a negative report about defendant Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. by Gotham City Research, LLC, an investor who shorted Tile Shop stock. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants served third-party subpoenas on Gotham seeking documents and depositions. When Gotham failed to comply with the subpoenas, the parties filed separate actions to compel Gotham's compliance. The actions have been related and Gotham filed a joint opposition to the parties' separate motions to compel. Gotham objects to both subpoenas as shielded from production by the journalist privilege, seeking trade secrets, and as an undue burden. The parties' motions asked the court to decide whether the federal qualified journalist privilege applies to an investor whose publications are limited to negative reports about the companies in which the investor has taken a short position. Judge Corley found that the privilege does not apply to Gotham on the record presented in the case. The judge thus granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, but denied the defendants' motion because notwithstanding Gotham's unsuccessful privilege assertion, the defendants have not shown the relevance of the information they seek. A full-text copy of Judge Corley's June 7, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/IMswa5 from Leagle.com. Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher T. Gilroy -- cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Russello -- jrussello@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Kenneth Joseph Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Paul Aaron Breucop -- pbreucop@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel H. Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Stacey Marie Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & William J Geddish -- wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Erie County Employees' Retirement System, Luc Dewulf, Plaintiffs, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher T. Gilroy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Russello, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Paul Aaron Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Stacey Marie Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & William J Geddish, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas Poli Chan -- nick.chan@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels. Gotham City Research LLC, Witness, represented by David William Shapiro, Boersch Shapiro LLP. TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Set for July 27 ------------------------------------------------------- Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has set a settlement hearing for July 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, or the Court, challenging the proposed stock-for-stock merger of Regado with Tobira, or the Proposed Merger. On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger. On May 4, 2015, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to Tobira Development, Inc. The complaints named as defendants: (i) each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii) Regado, (iii) Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Regado's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Regado's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b) implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and deter alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally alleged that the entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures related to the Merger Agreement and to cover Court-awarded fees. On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado provided additional disclosures to its stockholders. On May 4, 2015, Regado and Private Tobira completed the Merger. In connection with the proposed settlement, the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery. On April 22, 2016, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, or the Stipulation, which provides for a release of all claims against defendants related to any disclosures concerning the Merger and any fiduciary duty claims concerning the decision to enter into the Merger. In addition, the Stipulation of Settlement provides that the Company or its insurer(s) or successor(s) in interest will be responsible for payment of, and will not oppose, any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs up to $0.3 million which the Company recognized as an accrued expense in its accompanying Condensed Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016. The settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and any award of attorneys' fees and expenses are subject to approval by the Court, which has set a settlement hearing for July 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Tobira Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapies to treat liver disease, inflammation, fibrosis and HIV. TRACY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a man has filed a class-action lawsuit against a city over allegations he was not paid overtime. Ryan Knight filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the city of Tracy alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked for more than 40 hours at a given workweek but was not paid any overtime compensation by the defendant. The plaintiff holds the city of Tracy responsible because the defendant allegedly allowed plaintiff to work overtime but did not pay any overtime compensation to him. The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages plus interest and liquidated damages equal to the unpaid wages, all legal fees and any other relief as this court deems just. He is represented by David E. Mastagni, Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt APC in Sacramento. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case number 2:16-cv-01290-WBS-EFB TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Zolandz" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff move for Class Certification and Relief from Memorandum, Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing Requirements, in the class action lawsuit styled CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00695- CNC (E.D. Wisc.). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DVoCvNOd The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. 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 TRUMP UNIVERSITY: June 30 Hearing Set on Video Depositions ---------------------------------------------------------- Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, reports that lawyers for Donald Trump are fighting a legal move that could result in the public seeing videos of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee being subjected to pointed questions about his Trump University real estate seminar program. Class-action lawyers suing Trump for fraud over the Trump University business attempted to file 48 video clips of the real estate mogul at two recent depositions, including segments where he offered prickly responses to what he called "harassment questions." The plaintiffs said they needed to file the videos to show Trump's demeanor and to clarify some video segments not transcribed by a court reporter, but in a filing on June 13 with a federal court in San Diego, Trump's legal team called those reasons "disingenuous." "Plaintiff offers no legitimate reason for seeking submission of these videos, which are clearly intended to prejudice Mr. Trump," Trump lawyers Dan Petrocelli and David Kirman wrote. "Plaintiff's request to use video transcripts is an obvious attempt to prejudice Mr. Trump." Mr. Trump's attorneys did not explicitly refer to his presidential bid or say what type of "prejudice" they believed was intended. However, they noted that the credibility of witnesses is not supposed to be considered by the judge at this point in a case. Petrocelli and Kirman also served up a warning of sorts to U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the plaintiffs by saying that, if video submissions are permitted, Mr. Trump's side will seek to file potentially unflattering video clips of depositions from Trump University students and others "whose credibility could be called into question based on their demeanor in the video." "Admission of [the plaintiffs' video clips] could necessitate defendant to respond in kind with similar videos, all of which will result in many inefficiencies and will make the record unnecessarily unmanageable," Mr. Trump's lawyers wrote. A coalition of media organizations filed a motion with the judge on June 10 asking him to lift any limits on the plaintiffs' authority to release the full videos of Mr. Trump's depositions conducted in December in New York and in January in Las Vegas. Judge Curiel has yet to rule on that motion, but set a hearing on that issue for June 30. Trump launched a series of racially-charged attacks on the judge earlier this month and has insisted that the judge has been unfair, but the real estate developer's attorneys have never raised those issues in court, nor have they moved to recuse Judge Curiel. UNITED RECOVERY: July 26 Initial Status Hearing Set in "Hurt" ------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order in the lawsuit styled Geraldine Hurt, Plaintiff, v. United Recovery Systems, LP, et al., the Defendant, Case No.: 1:16-cv-05641 (N.D. Ill.), ruling that Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken as moot. Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken without prejudice to reinstate or file a new motion at a later date. Plaintiff has preserved her right. Initial status hearing is set for July 26, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. At least four working days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length, and file the Court's Joint Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy copies to this Court's Courtroom Deputy in Room 1908. Counsel for the Plaintiff is warned that failure to serve summons and complaint on Defendant will result in a dismissal of the action pursuant to FRCP 4. Counsel for Plaintiff is further directed to file with the Clerk of Court, the appropriate return of service or waiver of service. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EyWRX0IY UNITED SERVICES: Class-Action Sanctions to Impact Other Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that when Chief U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III sanctions 16 attorneys in a controversial insurance class-action case, it could make life harder for the plaintiffs' lawyers who have other cases pending in federal courts in Arkansas. "The other judges with these lawyers' pending cases will now be alert to the techniques of these lawyers," attorney Robert Trammell of Little Rock said in an emailed statement to Arkansas Business. "They can expect more frequent objections to anything they do." Among those attorneys who will be sanctioned in Holmes' Fort Smith courtroom on June 24 are class-action attorney John Goodson of Texarkana, his law partner, Matt Keil, and W.H. Taylor of the Fayetteville firm Taylor Law Partners. Goodson, Keil and other co-counsel have seven class-action insurance cases pending in federal court. Those cases were first filed in state courts in Arkansas, but the defendants moved to federal court between January 2014 and December 2015, as is allowed under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Defendants in class-action cases typically want to be in federal court, where it's more difficult for the case to be certified as a class action and settlements face more scrutiny from judges. Mr. Goodson, who is married to Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson, has used procedural maneuvers to move several class-action cases back to state court for settlement, with defendants agreeing in order to settle faster and cheaper in state courts. Judge Holmes, the chief federal judge for the Western District of Arkansas, found the practice to be an abuse of the judicial process. He has announced his plan to sanction 16 of the 17 attorneys on both sides of a case that he said was moved from his court to state court in order to effect a settlement that "benefited everyone but the class members." The specific sanctions Holmes is considering center on requiring the lawyers to disclose in future federal court cases that they have been sanctioned for abusing the system. Attorneys following the case said the sanctions mean that class-action attorneys won't be able to use the negotiating tool of offering the defendants the option of going to state court for an easier settlement. The sanctions will probably cause attorneys to think twice before settling in state court a class-action case that has been filed in federal court, said Georgene Vairo, a professor at Loyola Law School at Los Angeles and author of "The Complete CAFA: Analysis & Developments Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005." "With this opinion, it is likely to deter plaintiffs' attorneys and defense attorneys from bailing out of federal court to state court to get a better result," she said. Attorney John R. Elrod -- jelrod@cwlaw.com -- of Conner & Winters LLP of Fayetteville, who is representing Goodson, Keil and other class-action attorneys in the case, didn't return a call from Arkansas Business. Both the plaintiffs and the defense attorneys in the case have maintained they did nothing wrong, but Holmes found that only one of 17 lawyers was not involved in the abuse. The plaintiffs' attorneys recently hired attorneys from the New York law firm Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC, which was named one of the top 100 trial lawyers in the U.S. in 2015 by Benchmark Litigation, which covers the litigation and disputes market in North America. The attorneys also hired attorney Russell Post of Houston, who is a "board-certified appellate specialist," according to his website. "The entry of appearance of pretty high-powered attorneys to fight this is because this is a precedent they won't be able to stomach nationally," said Paul Love of the Heritage Law Office PLLC of Searcy. Mr. Love was the Arkansas counsel for the nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington. "They're coming in big guns because this is a big deal, and it's not just limited to Fort Smith," he said. Mr. Love had filed a friend of the court brief in the sanctions case, but Judge Holmes ruled that the proposed brief was neither solicited nor offered to the court in a reasonably timely manner. Mr. Love said that federal judges in other districts might start looking more closely to see if class-action cases that have been dismissed from their courtrooms were then refiled in state court for settlement purposes. That's what happened in the case of Mark and Katherine Adams v. United Services Automobile Association, but Holmes didn't know it until he read a report on the class-action maneuver in Arkansas Business in December. Neither Post nor the attorneys from Joseph Hage returned a call for comment. Another consequence could be that judges in other pending cases might replace the class members' attorneys with other attorneys, said Lester Brickman, a professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law in New York, where he is an expert in class actions and lawyer fees. "This is certainly within the power of the presiding judge," Mr. Brickman said. "And I think it's at least plausible that, in some of these cases, the class counsel who filed the action will be unseated in favor of untainted lawyers." The sanctions could also hurt the plaintiffs' attorneys when they ask that their cases be certified as class actions by a judge, said Ted Frank, director of the CEI's Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington. "The defendant will argue that these guys aren't going to represent the class under federal rules adequately, and you should deny the certification," he said. "It's possible that the judge might agree with that, which would adversely affect their class- action practice." Judge Cites 'Gamesmanship' Judge Holmes had questioned the attorneys for their handling of Adams v. USAA, which had been pending in his court for 17 months. The case was dismissed from Holmes' court in June 2015 and refiled the next day in Polk County Circuit Court for settlement purposes. In December, Polk County Circuit Court Judge Jerry Ryan, who didn't ask a single question about the settlement agreement, awarded $1.85 million in fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' attorneys. USAA agreed to set aside $3.4 million for the nearly 15,000 potential class members, but as of Feb. 20, fewer than 5 percent of the potential class members had submitted claims. Under the terms of the settlement, any money that wasn't claimed by class members would be returned to USAA. "The reality is that these kinds of highly questionable settlements take place with great frequency and are approved by judges," said Mr. Brickman, the law professor. Mr. Trammell, the Little Rock attorney, had objected to the settlement on behalf of some USAA members. He has appealed the case to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Judge Holmes said in his filings that he wouldn't have approved the settlement. Both the defense attorneys and the plaintiffs' lawyers maintained that they didn't do anything wrong in refilling the case in state court. Attorney John Emerson of Houston, who has handled class-action cases in Arkansas but wasn't involved in the USAA case, also said he thinks the attorneys acted properly in the handling of the case. "I know all of the lawyers," he said. "They're all excellent lawyers on both sides of the case." He said it was their prerogative to refile the case in Polk County. And the Polk County Circuit Court judge "would have the authority over the settlement," he said. "So I don't quite understand why there's any sort of controversy about this." Judge Holmes saw it differently. In the order issued on April 14, Holmes concluded that the attorneys dismissed the case for the improper purpose of evading federal court review. He added that the arrangement benefited everyone but the class members. "The gamesmanship is improper in any case," Judge Holmes wrote. "That it has become standard practice for some Respondents only further convinces the Court that this conduct is abuse of judicial process." Still, a number of questions remain as to what the impact of the sanctions will be, said Mr. Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness. "There's a lot that's uncharted here because most judges don't scrutinize proceedings this closely," he said. "And most judges don't act to protect class members like this." Attorneys Who Will Be Sanctioned The following plaintiffs' attorneys will be sanctioned by Chief U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III on June 24: Kenneth "Casey" Castleberry of Batesville Stephen C. Engstrom of Little Rock John Goodson of Texarkana D. Matt Keil of Texarkana Matthew L. Mustokoff of Radnor, Pennsylvania Timothy J. Myers of Fayetteville Richard E. Norman of Houston William B. Putman of Fayetteville Jason Earnest Roselius of Oklahoma City W.H. Taylor of Fayetteville A.F. "Tom" Thompson III of Batesville Stevan Earl Vowell of Fayetteville R. Martin "Marty" Weber Jr. of Houston The following defense attorneys will be sanctioned: Wystan Ackerman of Hartford, Connecticut Stephen Edward Goldman of Hartford, Connecticut Lyn P. Pruitt of Little Rock UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Sought in "Johnson" Case v. Treasury --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff will and hereby moves the Court for an Order certifying the class (the "Race Class" or the "Race Class Members"), in the lawsuit styled DAVID JOHNSON, the PLAINTIFF, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JACOB J. LEW, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; BETH F. COBERT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; VICTORIA A. LIPNIC, COMMISSIONER, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; and Unknown Defendants, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-cv-00072-TSC (D.C.). Accordingly, Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order certifying the class as follows: "All African-American individuals who were Revenue Agent in the Series 0512; Attorney in the 0905 Series; Appeals Officer in the GS 0930 Series and/or Criminal Investigator in the GS-1811 Series at any time between October 1, 2004 and the Entry of Judgment in the District Court." The Plaintiff further moves for an Order appointing Plaintiff David Johnson as representative of the Class and appointing Plaintiff's Counsel as Counsel for the Class, and requiring the federal Agency to identify all Class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oHX9l9RY The Plaintiff is represented by: David Johnson, Esq. 901 East 56th Street, 1C Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: 718-251-6063 UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Loses Bid to Moot TCPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Caren D. Enloe, Esq., of Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a district court in Minnesota has shut the "back door" on a collection agency who attempted to moot a putative class action by tendering the maximum amount of damages sought to the plaintiff. In Ung v. Universal Acceptance Corp., C.A. No. 15-127, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72861 (D. Minn. June 3, 2016), prior to the plaintiff's motion to certify class, the defendant tendered to the named plaintiff a check for the maximum amount of statutory TCPA damages sought on plaintiff's individual claim, along with a letter offering to stipulate to an awards of costs and an injunction prohibiting further calls to the plaintiff's cell phone. When the check was returned and the offer rejected, the collection agency moved for judgment asserting that the action was mooted, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez. When the Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez earlier this year regarding offers of judgment, a glimmer of hope arose for defendants in the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court held that a Rule 68 offer of full statutory relief does not moot a class action. See Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). In Campbell, the majority held that a case becomes moot only "when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party." Id., 136 S. Ct. at 670. The court continued its rationale by noting that since the defendant's offer lapsed without acceptance, they retained the same stake in the litigation they had at the outset. In other words, "[a]n unaccepted settlement offer-like any unaccepted contract offer -- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect." Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1534 (2013) (Kagan, J., dissenting). In the dissenting opinions of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, however, hope was not lost. Both noted that the majority in Campbell-Ewald did not say that payment of complete relief would lead to the same conclusion. In fact, Justice Alito's dissent went so far as to suggest that a defendant could moot a case by paying over the money sought by plaintiff either by handing them a certified check or by depositing the funds in an account in plaintiff's name or with the court. Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.Ct. 663, 684. In what was termed by the Minnesota district court as defendant's attempt "to shoehorn its case through Campbell-Ewald's back door, the defendant moved to dismiss the action arguing that by tendering complete relief rather than merely offering it, the case was moot. The court disagreed and denied the motion. "[I]n this court's view, there is no principled difference between a plaintiff rejecting a tender of payment and on offer of payment . . . Indeed, other than their labels, the two do not differ in any appreciable way once rejected: in either case, the plaintiff ends up in the exact same place he occupied before his rejection." Ung at *13-14. Moreover, the court was also persuaded by the fact that the defendant's offer required further action by the court- the entry of the stipulated injunction and the court remained troubled by the fact that mooting the case would preclude the court from entering the injunction. The court also was disturbed by the fundamental fact that mooting the entire action based upon the individual claim being mooted would cause a fundamental failure of the class action device, noting that for the class action device to work, the court must have a reasonable opportunity to consider and decide the motion for certification. As stated by the court, "[a]ccepting Universal's argument would place control of a putative class action in the defendant's hands . . . The law does not countenance the use of individual offers to thwart class litigation." Ung at *21. UTZ QUALITY: Claims "Natural" Food Labeling Suits Lawyer-Driven --------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Los Angeles-based attorney who focuses on mass tort litigation and consumer class actions in connection with food, supplements and other consumer packaged goods said a lawsuit filed in May against Utz Quality Foods Inc. is one of numerous actions of its kind that are "unjustified." Those lawsuits are consumer class actions that challenge the validity of products that use the word "natural" on their labeling. "These are lawyer-driven cases seeking to capitalize on the fact that the term 'natural' is undefined by any regulatory agency," David Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP told Legal Newsline. "For any products labeled 'natural,' lawyers seek to find some ingredient that they can challenge. The ingredients are usually not chemicals, and are derived or part of plant materials. The lawyers try to suggest that the way the ingredients are produced make the ingredients not 'natural.' They are wrong." Lead plaintiff Cyrus Hashtpari of Ventura County, Calif., filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 18 against Utz Quality Foods, alleging counts of common law fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's civil, business and commercial codes. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges Utz mislabels its Dirty Potato Chips brand product by claiming the chips are all natural and contain no preservatives. Despite the all-natural claims on the label, the plaintiff says in the complaint that the chips actually contain non-natural, artificial and synthetic ingredients and preservatives. "These cases are an unjustified attempt to capitalize on the use of the word 'natural' to somehow suggest that consumers are confused," Mr. Biderman said. "They are driven by lawyers and, while it appears this trend is continuing, these cases should not be brought. "They don't help the public, and they create unnecessary issues for food companies who define their labeling in accordance with the applicable (Food and Drug Administration) regulations." The plaintiff is asking the court to schedule a jury trial, and to award the class compensatory and punitive damages, as well as restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, interests, attorney fees and the costs associated with bringing the suit. "If the court allows the case to move forward, there are strong grounds for moving to dismiss the case because the term 'natural' is not sufficiently defined to justify a claim that a reasonable consumer would be confused or misled," Mr. Biderman said. In addition, Mr. Biderman suggested that the company should ask the court to dismiss or stay the class action suit under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because the FDA has now invited comments on whether it should define the term "natural". "The courts should not intervene in these cases while the FDA is considering the issue," Mr. Biderman said. "One court -- a very informed panel on the Ninth Circuit, an appellate court, has already stayed a 'natural' lawsuit because of the pending FDA proceedings. The case should be stayed or dismissed." VITAL THERAPIES: Response to Amended Suit Due July 1 ---------------------------------------------------- Vital Therapies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Vital Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, the court set a deadline of June 1, 2016, for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint and ordered Vital Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson to respond to the amended complaint within thirty days of its filing. On December 2, 2015, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Patrick A. Griggs v. Vital Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS. On December 30, 2015, a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court, captioned Alicia Beach Halverstadt v. Vital Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02951-JLS-NLS. The complaints name as defendants Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry Winters, and Michael V. Swanson for allegedly misrepresenting material facts and/or misleading investors about the interconnection between our three clinical trials, the independent significance of each clinical trial, and the potential effects of the failure of one of the clinical trials on the others. The complaints are filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Vital Therapies stock between April 17, 2014 through August 21, 2015, inclusive. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief. On February 1, 2016, putative shareholders and class members Kaktrale Austin, Sumesh Kumar, and Nelson Than moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel. Kaktrale Austin and Sumesh Kumar also moved to consolidate the complaints into a single action. Sumesh Kumar and Nelson Than withdrew their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff on February 23, 2016, and March 3, 2016, respectively. On May 2, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiff Kaktrale Austin's motion for consolidation and appointing plaintiff Kaktrale as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel. The consolidated action is captioned In re Vital Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-2700 JLS (NLS). The court also set a deadline of June 1, 2016 for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint and ordered Vital Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson to respond to the amended complaint within thirty days of its filing. The Company said, "We intend to defend the securities lawsuit vigorously. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action. We are expensing legal costs associated with defending this litigation as the costs are incurred." Vital Therapies is a biotherapeutic company focused on developing a human hepatic cell-based treatment targeting acute forms of liver failure. WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Dismissed Two Merger Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that a court has dismissed two class action lawsuits related to the Company's merger agreement with SanDisk Corp. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed two putative class action complaints in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger the Company entered into with SanDisk on October 21, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"). The complaints alleged, among other things, that the members of the SanDisk board breached their fiduciary duties to SanDisk's shareholders by agreeing to sell SanDisk for inadequate consideration, failing to properly value SanDisk, agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions that may inhibit other bidders from coming forward with a superior offer, not protecting against alleged conflicts of interest resulting from the SanDisk directors' own interrelationships or connection with the proposed transaction, and failing to disclose all material information regarding the proposed transaction. The complaints also alleged that the Company aided and abetted the SanDisk board members' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Merger from closing. The plaintiffs were also seeking, among other things, to recover costs and disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. At the request of the plaintiffs, the court ordered one of these matters dismissed without prejudice on February 26, 2016, and the other on March 8, 2016. XPO LOGISTICS: To Pay $235,000 in Plaintiff Counsel Fees -------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, that the Company has agreed to pay fees and expenses of $235,000 to the plaintiff's counsel. On October 7, 2015, a purported stockholder of Con-way Inc. ("Con- way") filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Abrams v. Espe, et al., C.A. No. 11585-VCN. The complaint named as defendants the members of the board of directors of Con-way, XPO Logistics, Inc. ("XPO") and an affiliate thereof, and Citigroup Inc., financial advisor to Con- way, in connection with the acquisition of Con-way by XPO. The complaint alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with the proposed transaction and failing to disclose certain information in the Schedule 14D-9 of Con-way relating to the proposed acquisition. The lawsuit sought, among other relief, a preliminary injunction, rescissory damages and recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order requesting dismissal of the action, and further noting its counsel's intent to submit an application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On February 24, 2016, the Delaware court granted the Order, retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Plaintiff's counsel had expressed an intention to petition the Court of Chancery for fees and reimbursement of expenses relating to the supplemental disclosures made by Con-way in the amendment to Schedule 14D-9 filed on October 22, 2015. XPO has agreed to pay fees and expenses of $235,000 to the plaintiff's counsel no less than 30 days after the filing of this Form 8-K, and plaintiff's counsel has agreed not make any application to the court for additional attorneys' fees and expenses. This fee has not been in any way approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery. Payment by XPO of the foregoing fees and expenses will fully and finally resolve this litigation. WAYFAIR INC: "Dingee" Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------ In the case, Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 06941), Judge Denise L Cote entered an Opinion and Order dated May 24, 2016, granting Defendants' February 25 motion to dismiss, with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on September 2, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06941) by an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, (or collectively, the "Dingee Plaintiffs"), under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to a drop in stock price that had followed a report issued by Citron Research. On September 3, 2015 a second putative class action complaint was filed, asserting nearly identical claims (Jenkins v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06985). On November 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the Dingee action moved to consolidate the two lawsuits, and to designate himself as lead plaintiff in the class action and his attorney as lead counsel for the class. On November 3, 2015 plaintiff in the Jenkins action voluntarily dismissed his complaint. As a result, only the Dingee action remains pending. On November 13, 2015, the Court appointed Dingee as lead plaintiff. On January 11, 2016, Dingee filed an amended complaint along with a second named plaintiff, Michael Lamp. The Dingee Plaintiff's complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount, and attorney's fees and costs. "We have moved to dismiss the case; briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on April 1, 2016 and the parties are awaiting a decision. The Company believes a loss is not probable and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said. WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Carson" Class Suit in C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action complaint was filed on February 2, 2016, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Carson, et al., v. Wayfair Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv- 00716) by two individuals on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals (collectively, the "Carson Plaintiffs"). The complaint alleges that Wayfair engaged in a deceptive marketing campaign in which the Company advertised certain "original" or "regular" retail prices, which the Carson Plaintiffs allege were false. The Carson Plaintiffs' complaint seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, punitive damages and damages. The Company believes a loss is not probable and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. WESTLAKE FINANCIAL: Settles Robocall Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that did you get an auto loan through Westlake Financial Services, and get a robocall on your cellphone in 2012 or 2013? The lawsuit says that violates the law. The settlement could put $150 back in your pocket. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces ERISA Class Action in Oregon --------------------------------------------------- Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a new proposed class action accuses Weyerhaeuser Co., one of the largest forest products companies in the world, of illegally terminating retirees' vested lifetime health-care benefits ( Kepner v. Weyerhaeuser Co. , D. Or., No. 6:16-cv-01040, complaint filed 6/8/16 ). Weyerhaeuser in January 2015 unilaterally terminated its contributions to the retirees' health plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to a complaint filed June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The retirees seek reinstatement of their benefits and $7.8 million in damages allegedly suffered after the company stopped making contributions to the plan. James Kepner and three other retirees, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, allege that they were recruited and retained by Weyerhaeuser as salaried employees based in part on the company's benefits package, which included lifetime health- care benefits for retirees. The proposed class includes retirees and their eligible spouses whose rights to health-care benefits -- including coverage, contributions, reimbursement, or premium coverage -- had been affected by terminations, reductions or changes since December 2010. The class could include between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals, the complaint says. Weyerhaeuser's Promise In 1979, Weyerhaeuser distributed a summary plan description to its salaried employees informing them of the nature and scope of their benefits package, the complaint alleges. Accordingly, the SPD explained that the employees had the right to continue health- care benefits after retirement if they elected to make a small monthly contribution. According to the complaint, the company in 1990 included a reservation-of-rights clause, which allowed it to modify or amend the retiree contributions or terminate and substitute the retiree plan in the future. Later, the company started making changes to the benefits and ultimately terminated the company's contributions altogether in 2015, the complaint says. The class alleges that Weyerhaeuser reiterated through the years its promise of lifetime health-care benefits as part of the company's compensation package. They also allege that despite multiple requests to the company to disclose the 1979 plan documents, the company has refused to do so. This refusal is an attempt to "obfuscate" its promise to retirees for lifetime benefits and an "effort to misinform" them, the complaint says. The class also seeks a declaration that they are entitled to lifetime benefits and that any plan amendment to reduce or terminate the benefits is null and void. A spokesman for Weyerhaeuser told Bloomberg BNA June 10 that as a matter of policy the company doesn't comment on pending litigation, Haglund Kelley LLP represents the retirees. WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission ---------------------------------------------------------- Hon. John A. Kronstadt entered an order in the lawsuit styled Suri Payala v. Wipro Technologies, Inc., et al., Case 2:15-cv- 04063-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), taking the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification under submission. A hearing on the Motion for Class Certification was held and counsel addressed the issues raised by the Court regarding Plaintiff's Motion. The "Status Conference Re Trial Readiness & Scheduling" was not held. The Court will determine what date(s), if any, need to be amended after the final ruling is issued. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=roAdN8as The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Kellner, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Conference Held in "Reyes" ----------------------------------------------------------- Settlement conferences in the case, REYES v. ZION FIRST NATIONAL BANK et al, Case No. 2:10-cv-00345 (E.D. Pa.), were conducted before Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice on June 9 and 10, 2016. Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action case, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., which was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early 2010. This case relates to our banking relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices. The plaintiff is seeking a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act. In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. The plaintiff appealed the District Court decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the third quarter of 2015, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's decision denying class certification and remanded the matter to the District Court with instructions to reconsider the class certification determination in light of particular standards articulated by the Third Circuit in its opinion. A class certification hearing was scheduled for late May 2016. Following the Third Circuit's decision, the parties participated in a number of mediation sessions, which could result in a settlement. Any such settlement would be subject to court approval. There can be no assurance, however, that the parties will be able to settle this matter. Zions Bancorporation is a financial holding company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and with its subsidiaries, provides a full range of banking and related services. Following the close of business on December 31, 2015, the Company completed the merger of its subsidiary banks and other subsidiaries into a single bank, ZB, N.A. * Education Dep't Proposes New Rules Following College Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Obama administration is trying to make it easier for students who have been misled or defrauded by their colleges to have their loans forgiven. The Education Department says a rule proposed on June 13 would lay out a clear relief process for borrowers who believe they were lied to about job prospects after college or otherwise deceived in order to enroll in the school. It also aims to hold schools accused of fraud or at financial risk more accountable by requiring them to notify prospective and enrolled students, as well as set aside money that could help cover future claims against the school. The proposal follows the collapse last year of Corinthian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit college companies. "A college degree remains one of the best investments anyone can make in his or her future," Education Secretary John B. King Jr. said on a call with reporters. "But that's only true if it's a meaningful degree that helps you land a better job, not if it's a worthless piece of paper that's an artifact of deception rather than proof of accomplishment." Undersecretary Ted Mitchell said the new regulations, expected to take effect in July 2017, "would replace a complicated uneven and burdensome standard that varies by state with a new robust federal standard that will allow easy use by students." The proposal would streamline debt relief for groups of students if they all experienced the same misconduct by a school, such as instances of wide misrepresentation -- meaning they all wouldn't have to file individual applications for loan forgiveness. The new provisions also would bar colleges from forbidding students from class-action lawsuits as part of enrollment agreements, something Corinthian had done. The Debt Collective, a New York-based group that has lobbied to have the student loans of Corinthian students canceled, was cautious in its response. "What the department released [June 13] amounts to little more than a loose statement of intention to do right by student debtors after decades of collaboration with corrupt for-profits," spokeswoman Laura Hanna said in a statement. The group is concerned the education secretary would have too much power in deciding relief to groups of borrowers. A whistleblower raised concerns about Corinthian in early 2011, alleging that employees of the for-profit chain fabricated employers to make it appear as though unemployed graduates had secured good jobs in their careers of study. California's attorney general filed a lawsuit in 2013, alleging rampant lies to students about job placement. Corinthian filed for bankruptcy protection last year, closing schools and leaving thousands of students with hefty debt and frustrated their efforts to earn degrees. The Education Department continues to vet thousands of requests from Corinthian students for relief from their federal loans. So far, it has erased the debt for more than 8,800 former Corinthian students, totaling more than $132 million. But that's only a small fraction of the estimated $3.6 billion in federal loans given to Corinthian students. * High Court Rulings to Impact ERISA, Securities Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that the ability of retirement plan participants and institutional investors to pursue ERISA and securities class-action lawsuits could be significantly altered, following two Supreme Court actions that have sent both groups back to the circuit courts to make their respective cases. For plan participants, the high court's decision in May in Spokeo Inc. vs. Robins raised the bar for such lawsuits by requiring greater proof of harm to even get a day in court. For institutional investors, the Supreme Court's eleventh-hour decision to not take up a case addressing the timeliness of securities class actions left the issue up to deeply divided circuit courts and has investors anxious. "It is an enormously significant issue," said Chris Supple, deputy executive director and general counsel for the $60 billion Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, Boston, who co-chairs the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys' securities litigation committee. "And there's a tremendous amount of investor capital at stake in these cases." In Spokeo, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion for the 6-2 decision that the ""irreducible constitutional minimum' of standing consists of three elements. . . . The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." To lawyers defending plan sponsors in cases stemming from alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the decision raises the bar for plan participants to pursue such claims, although the question of actual harm will have to be decided case by case. "Spokeo will bolster the argument by the defense bar that for an ERISA claim to survive, harm must actually exist or there must be plausible evidence of a risk of real harm. That is going complicate the pleading ability of the plaintiffs' bar to allege a claim under ERISA where they can't show that," said Nancy Ross, a Chicago-based Mayer Brown partner. She thinks the decision will cast doubt particularly on claims involving plan amendments that did not yet result in harm, claims over the funding of defined benefit plans, or those seeking statutory penalties for failure to provide plan documents in a timely fashion. The Pension Rights Center in Washington, in its amicus brief, warned that the narrower interpretation "could affect the retirement income security of millions of employees." The potential sea change the ruling represents became apparent just one week later, when the court cited its Spokeo decision as it gave a class of Verizon Communications Inc. retirees another chance to challenge a pension buyout annuity deal by vacating a lower court decision and ordering the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to reconsider it in light of Spokeo. Some ERISA defense lawyers, who worry that vacating the decision could discourage other employers from considering annuity buyouts, are braced for challenges. While many court observers see Spokeo as making it tougher for participants to sue, Karen Handorf, a Washington-based partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, which represented the participants in their Supreme Court petition, saw the order to vacate as a green light to bring such suits. "It reaffirms that participants in plans don't have to wait for actual losses" before suing plan fiduciaries, Ms. Handorf said. In the second case, institutional investors were counting on the Supreme Court to weigh in on two key questions regarding the timeliness of securities litigation: how much time investors have to sue for damages and whether they have to go it alone before the class-action opt-out deadline is up. But a last-minute settlement in the case brought by the $23.8 billion Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System, Jackson, against IndyMac MBS Inc. challenging the time limits for investors to join or opt out of class-action lawsuits, prompted the court to remove the case shortly before scheduled arguments. That leaves the timing question to lower courts, which have been split. Investors have been relying on an even older Supreme Court decision. In 1974, the court ruled in American Pipe and Construction Co. et al. vs. State of Utah et al. that the filing of a class-action lawsuit suspends -- or tolls -- the running of a filing deadline for all class members. That works for situations where there are clear statutes of limitations, but cases involving securities purchases raise another legal concept, statute of repose. "Before IndyMac, everybody understood that everything was tolled. Once the class action was filed, all the institutional investors knew they could wait and see how the class action was resolved, and then decide whether to take individual action or not," said Javier Bleichmar -- jbleichmar@bfalaw.com -- a partner in the New York law firm Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld LLP, which represents institutional investors in securities litigation. A big deal The tolling question is such a big deal that 55 public pension funds and other institutional investors representing $1.5 trillion of assets and the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems joined in filing an amicus brief May 31 asking the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule as soon as possible in a case that would break a 2-2 circuit split, North Sound Capital LLC et al. vs. Merck & Co. Inc. et al. Without that clarity, institutional investors could be forced to protect their interests by filing individual claims if there is a risk that a class certification will be denied or decertified. "It takes away a significant advantage of the class action if you have to pay attention to every individual case. It's exactly the type of burden that the class action was designed to avoid -- both for litigants and the courts. Institutional investors rely on the class action and as currently configured don't really have the resources to do otherwise," said Mr. Supple of MassPRIM. "We are trying to preserve a set of securities laws that protect investors," said Hank Kim, executive director and general counsel of NCPERS, whose 500 public pension fund members have $2 trillion in assets. He and many others expect that the tolling question ultimately will wind up back at the Supreme Court. Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- a partner with Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who prepared the amicus brief, thinks the high court will be interested after the 3rd Circuit weighs in on North Sound. The split among the circuits "just causes a tremendous amount of burden and waste for shareholders. The uncertainty of what a circuit may do has caused investors to be prudent and file protective claims," he said. That additional burden on courts also could capture the Supreme Court's attention, noted Mr. Bleichmar. "Judicial efficiency is a big issue for the Supreme Court, and that cuts across party lines." * Therium Mulls Class Action Against Closet Indexers in Europe -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Pearce, writing for Financial News, reports that the litigation funder backing the high-profile shareholder action against Lloyds Banking Group is looking to ratchet up the pressure on closet indexers in Europe, having started preliminary research on the issue with an eye on bankrolling a class action in the UK later this year. Therium Capital Management is investigating the viability of funding legal action on behalf of pension funds over whether they have been misled into investing in funds that charge fees in line with active management but in reality mimic passive benchmarks. The firm was launched in 2009 by three lawyers and has invested in a range of cases from intellectual property disputes to lawsuits in the energy sector. Over the past 18 months a host of national regulators in Europe have announced investigations into the extent of closet indexing in their home markets, while a class action was unsuccessfully attempted in Sweden. However, the London-based firm's decision to start exploratory work into the issue is a clear indication it believes there could be solid ground for seeking legal redress in the UK. Hanif Virji, who leads Therium AHV Financial Markets, which was launched in November 2015 to focus exclusively on finance ligation, told Financial News that he has begun collecting data on 24 of the biggest actively managed investment funds in the UK and Europe to ascertain how active they are. His work is based on the methodology developed and widely cited by Antti Petajisto, formerly an academic at Yale and now a quant portfolio manager at BlackRock, and Martijn Cremers, a professor of finance at the University of Notre Dame. Mr. Virji acknowledged that it is not a "black-and-white issue" but said that out of the full data set so far collected on seven funds, three appear to be closet indexers. "There's nothing like getting your hands totally dirty to understand the issue," he said. "If you are on the wrong side of [our research], you are in our cross hairs." If Therium feels the preliminary research shows there is a reason for further investigation, it will broaden out its study to a larger spread of funds. If this also offers strong evidence that a case could be launched then Therium will enlist a law firm to apply for a group litigation order and file particulars of claim at the High Court, detailing the issue and the extent of the potential damage. At this point, pension funds which believe they have wrongly invested in closet indexing funds will be able to enlist for the class action. In February, the European Securities and Markets Authority reported that up to 15% of active equity funds it had investigated in Europe were in closet indexing territory. In Sweden, a class action on behalf of 3,000 investors against Swedbank Robur for alleged closet indexing was last year dismissed by the Swedish consumer complaints board on the grounds that the case required oral evidence from witnesses, which was beyond the scope of the organization's power. Therium is known for funding the shareholder action against Lloyds Banking Group over losses sustained following its ill-fated takeover of HBOS in 2008. Lloyds was later bailed out by the government. Neil Purslow, co-founder and chief investment officer of Therium, said the firm has generated private equity-style returns for its investors since 2009. It raised $300 million from investors in 2015. He added: "[Closet indexing] is a huge wrongdoing. You can't just track the market accidentally -- someone is sat there doing it." ********* 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 * * *