/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160822.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 167 Headlines 374 FOOD: Sued Over "Violations" of FLSA, New York Labor Law 7TH AVENUE: Violates FLSA's Overtime Provision, "Islam" Suit Says AACER ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Denies Claims in Suit over St. Jude Deal ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYER: "Medina" Suit Seeks $50,000+ in Damages AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Moved From Virginia to Texas AMERICAN WATER: Certification for Liability & Damage Class Sought AMERICAN WATER: Trial in Federal Case Rescheduled to October 25 AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending ANDALOU NATURALS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Merchandising Practices ANGIE'S LIST: Nov. 8 Final Fairness Hearing in "Moore" Case ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Case in New Jersey Voluntarily Dismissed ANGIE'S LIST: "Zygelman" Case in N.D. Cal. Voluntarily Dismissed ANGIE'S LIST: Conditional Certification Bid in "Williams" Opposed ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Suit by 3 Former Employees in S.D. Ind. APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Deal for Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel Okayed ARES CAPITAL: "Sutton" Shareholder Class Action Filed in Maryland ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Toss Javelin Investors' Suit Pending ATLAS AIR: Settlement in Pricing Suit Awaits Final Court Approval AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Sued in Cal. Over Reduced Insurance Claim BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Clark" Suit in Ariz. Over "Data Breach" BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Amends Class Certification Bid BBX CAPITAL: "Stein" Files Suit Over Merger with BFC BEST WINGERS: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa(R) BULL ROGERS: "Gowens" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA C LEVEL LLC: Accused by "Owens" Suit of Unpaid OT and Retaliation CALIX INC: Aug 26 Hearing to Approve Occam Merger Case Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends "Surrett" Student Litigation CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Wilson" Still Pending CHEVRON STATIONS: "Williams" Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code CLEAN HARBORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal of Securities Case Under Appeal COPLEY PLAZA: "Saban" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Statute DALLAS CENTRAL: Security Seeks Reductions of Property Values DALLAS CENTRAL: ARC Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value DALLAS CENTRAL: RPI Cedarhill Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value DALLAS CENTRAL: El Tahhan Sues Over Excessive Property Value DINER 84: Faces "Sibinski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Scally" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: 9th Cir. Appeal in Investors' Suit Underway DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Antitrust Class Action Pending in Calif. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: AACERS Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bumba Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal DRIFTWOOD DAIRY: "Collins" Seeks Damages Under Labor Code EAST RIDGE: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EEG INC: Sued for Over-charging of Salon Education Course EIGHT O'CLOCK: Faces "Sorgenti" Suit in N.Y. Over Coffee Bags EMPIRE CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Investors Sue in Georgia Over IPO ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Court Asked to Decertify & Dismiss OT Claims ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over AmSurg Corp. Merger FITZGERALD EQUITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lugo" Suit Claims FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Hendley" Securities Suit in S.D. New York FORTRESS SECURITY: "Real" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code G1 TOWING: "Castaneda" Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code GANDARA MENTAL: "Romero" Seeks Overtime Wages Under Hour Laws GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Pending in N.D. Ohio GENWORTH FINANCIAL: $219MM Securities Case Settlement Okayed GENWORTH FINANCIAL: City of Hialeah Employees' Suit Ongoing GNC HOLDINGS: 28 DMAA & Aegeline Product Liability Claims Pending GNC HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Tuesday in "Brewer" Case GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defending "Naranjo" Meal & Rest Break Suit GROUPON INC: Settlement in Securities Litigation Granted Final OK GROUPON INC: Appeal in Marketing & Sales Practices Case Dismissed HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Motion to Amend "Halloran" Suit Pending HARRIS COUNTY: Eagle Creek Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value HARRIS COUNTY: FCL Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value HARRIS COUNTY: Jones Road Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value HARRIS COUNTY: Yorktown Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value HOMZ MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sauer" Suit in Western Dist. of Wisconsin HUNTSMAN CORP: Fails to Shake Off Consumer Class Suit IDEAL TELECOM: Sued in Florida Cir. Ct. Over Junk Faxing IESI MD CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Poe" Suit Asserts IMS HEALTH: Has Not Yet Responded to Motion for Injunction INTEX RECREATION: "Mirescu" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Texas JAMES MCFADDEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Weisberg" Suit Says JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Anew KARAMPELAS INVESTMENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LA QUINTA: Defending Against "Beisel" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. MARATHON PETROLEUM: MarkWest Merger Litigation Now Dismissed MARKETO INC: Defending "Porwal" Class Suit in California MARKETO INC: Request for TRO in "Rosati" Denied MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces ERISA Suit by 401(k) Planholders MEDIA MIX: Faces "Affolder" Suit in Central Dist. of California MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Two Merger Class Actions Filed in S.D. Tex. MINNESOTA: Faces "Gamble" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation MKS INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Pincon and Chung Cases NABORS INDUSTRIES: Preliminary Settlement Discussions Underway NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Rabin" Suit Still Pending NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Providence" Suit Still Pending NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Lanier" Suit Still Pending NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA NOBILIS HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss "Schott" Suit Under Advisement NOBILIS HEALTH: "Capelli" Suit Underway in Ontario NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palacci" Suit Says ONEOK INC: Updates on Gas Index Pricing Litigation ORBITAL ATK: Violates Securities Laws, "Knurr" Class Suit Alleges PACIFIC COAST: Preliminary Approval of "Welch" Settlement Sought PASTEUR MEDICAL: "Santana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime RELYPSA INC: Faces "Lu" Class Suit Over Proposed Sale to Galenica REVCLAIMS LLC: "Hargett" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. SAIGON CAFE: Faces "Qian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAPUTO CHEESE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Karbash" Sues Over Sale to Nichi-Iko SPEEDPAY INC: Motion for Judgment in "Pincus" Case Pending ST. JUDE MEDICAL: $39.25MM Settlement Has Preliminary Approval STONERIDGE INC: Class Certification Bid in "Verde" Case Pending STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Action Remains Pending in Oklahoma SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Order Decertifying Class Reversed SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Briefing to Be Completed in August 2016 SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settles Several Robocall Suits SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defending "Kincaid" Action in N.D. Ill. UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Pay DCIC Instructors OT URBAN SETTLEMENT: "Dunn" Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code US PIZZA CO: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum Wages, Latcham Claims VEREIT INC: Case Management Conference Scheduled for September 9 VEREIT INC: Case Before Maryland Appeals Court Still Pending VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Remains Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Litigation Remains Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: "DiSalvo" Action Moved to N.D. Ohio VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Litigation Remains Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in ISO Litigation Underway VULCAN MATERIALS: First Trial Date Set for March 2017 WASHINGTON SQUARE: "Jennings" Action Remains Pending in Illinois WESTERN UNION: Tennille and Smet Cases Pending in Colorado Court WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Case Awaits Final Approval WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholders' Amended Complaint Due Aug. 31 WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit in District of Connecticut WRIGHT MEDICAL: 1,167 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending in MDL WRIGHT MEDICAL: 4 US & 5 Non-US Suits Over Modular Neck Pending WRIGHT MEDICAL: Updates on Wright-Tornier Merger Litigation Y.Y.K. ENTERPRISES: "Fuselier" Suit Moved to S.D. of California YORK BAGELS: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ********* 374 FOOD: Sued Over "Violations" of FLSA, New York Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ DOMINGO CASTILLO MARCELINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. 374 FOOD, INC. (d/b/a TRIBECA BAGELS), TIRAN TSADOK, and HAYIM TSADOK, Case No: 1:16-cv-06287 (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. Tribeca Bagels is a bagel shop/deli owned by Tiran Tsadok and Hayim Tsadok. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 7TH AVENUE: Violates FLSA's Overtime Provision, "Islam" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH ISLAM, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. 7th AVENUE GIFTS LLC, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JAHAGIR AFZAL, individually, Case No. 1:16- cv-06424 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon alleged violations committed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts and the New York Labor Law. 7th Avenue Gifts LLC is a New York limited liability company headquartered in New York City. The Defendants are a chain of stores that sell souvenirs, which are located throughout New York and that operate as a single business enterprise, and that together operate at least three popular souvenir retail establishments under different names. Jahagir Afzal operates and manages each of the stores, overseeing their operations on a daily basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: dpvn@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com AACER ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Dania Reyes-Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aacer Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Aacer Flooring, Case No. 1:16-cv-01078-WCG (E.D. Wis., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Aacer Acquisition, LLC manufactures hardwood flooring products for the residential, sports, and recreational markets at its facility in Peshtigo, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Denies Claims in Suit over St. Jude Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that two purported shareholder derivative class action lawsuits were filed in May 2016 against St. Jude Medical, its board of directors, and Abbott and two of its subsidiaries in the Minnesota District Court, Second Judicial District (Ramsey County). Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the members of the St. Jude Medical board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to St. Jude Medical shareholders by entering into the agreement, and that Abbott aided and abetted those breaches. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as well as actual and punitive damages. Abbott denies all substantive allegations in the case. ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYER: "Medina" Suit Seeks $50,000+ in Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLYN MEDINA, the Plaintiff, v. ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 160801313 (Phil, Cty. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks in excess of $50,000.00 in monetary damages. The Defendant allegedly caused a consumer report to be procured without first providing an adequate disclosure, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Administrative Employer provides professional services. The Company provides benefits such as controls costs, saves time and reduces paperwork, increased job satisfaction, enhanced benefits packages, reduces accounting costs, and workers' compensation coverage to the customers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. Bruce M. Ludwig, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215 656 3679 Facsimile: 215 561 5135 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Moved From Virginia to Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Guadalupe v. American Campus Communities Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00487, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin). The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16- cv-00967 to the proceeding. Tyasia Guadalupe brought the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendants alleged unpaid wages, damages for improper wage deductions, and damages for unlawfully passing employer costs to the employees. American Campus Communities, Inc. is a Maryland real estate investment trust. The Defendants hold a noncontrolling equity interest in a joint venture that owns a military housing privatization project with the United States Navy to design, develop, construct, renovate, and manage unaccompanied soldier housing located on naval bases in Norfolk and Newport News, Virginia (the "Joint Venture"). The properties comprising the Joint Venture are known as "HomePort Hampton Roads". Plaintiff Tyasia Guadalupe is represented by: Joshua Michael David, Esq. Nicholas Anthony Nunes, Esq. DAVID KAMP & FRANK LLC 739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105 Newport News, VA 23606 Telephone: (757) 595-4500 Facsimile: (757) 595-6723 E-mail: jdavid@davidkampfrank.com nanunes@davidkampfrank.com Defendants American Campus Communities Services, Inc., American Campus Communities, Inc., and American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P., are represented by: Scott William Kezman, Esq. Stanley G. Barr, Jr., Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES PC 150 W Main St. PO Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 624-3008 Facsimile: (888) 360-9092 E-mail: swkezman@kaufcan.com sgbarr@kaufcan.com AMERICAN WATER: Certification for Liability & Damage Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking certification for liability and damage classes. On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of its approximately 93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West Virginia counties served by the Charleston treatment plant. The order addressed the use of water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection. Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1 ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and the EPA indicated would be protective of public health. Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive demand, which could have caused additional water quality and service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the chemicals were at non- detectable levels remained in place. In addition, based on saved samples taken on or before January 18, 2014, PPH/DiPPH was no longer detected in the water supply as of January 18, 2014. On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC continued to work with laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of MCHM and announced on March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the system to below this level. To date, there are 69 pending cases against WVAWC with respect to this matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties. Fifty-three of the state court cases naming WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the Company, the "American Water Defendants") were removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On December 17, 2015, the federal district court entered orders remanding 52 of the previously removed cases back to the West Virginia Circuit Courts for further proceedings (two of the previously removed cases had been dismissed in the interim). Following that order, seven additional cases were filed against WVAWC in West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha and Putnam counties with respect to this matter. On January 28, 2016, all of the state court cases were referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further proceedings. On June 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint. The second amended consolidated class action complaint names WVAWC as a defendant and alleges claims of, among other things, negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity, breach of contract, breach of statutory implied warranty, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent infliction of emotional distress, medical monitoring and punitive damages. On July 6, 2016, the defendants filed an answer in response to these claims. On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking certification for liability and damage classes, including businesses and residents who were customers of WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") on January 9, 2014, all West Virginia persons who suffered wage loss as a result of the spill and personal injury and medical monitoring for West Virginia residents within the affected counties that were exposed to contaminated water as a result of the spill. American Water Works Company, Inc. is the largest and most geographically diverse investor-owned publicly-traded water and wastewater utility company in the United States, as measured both by operating revenue and population served. AMERICAN WATER: Trial in Federal Case Rescheduled to October 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill, four of the cases pending before the federal district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the "Federal action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by WVAWC in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including the American Water Defendants. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss of use of property, personal injury and other consequences allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent disease. On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015. The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint. On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class defined to include persons who resided in dwellings served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, persons who owned businesses served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, and hourly employees who worked for such businesses. The plaintiffs sought a class-wide determination of liability against the American Water Defendants, among others, and of damages to the three groups of plaintiffs as a result of the "Do Not Use" order issued after the Freedom Industries spill. On October 8, 2015, the court in the Federal action granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The court certified a class addressing the alleged fault of Eastman Chemical for tort claims and the alleged fault of the American Water Defendants for tort and breach of contract claims, as well as the comparative fault of Freedom Industries. However, the court granted the joint motion by defendants to exclude certain expert testimony, disallowing the testimony of plaintiffs' economic damages experts, and denied class certification as to any damages, including punitive damages. Thus, determination or quantification of damages, if any, would be made in subsequent proceedings on an individual basis. On December 17, 2015, the court in the Federal action originally entered a scheduling order that provided for the trial on class issues to begin in July 2016. During the first week of January 2016, three additional cases were filed against one or more of the American Water Defendants, as well as others, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with respect to this matter. On March 25, 2016, the court in the Federal action entered an order extending the schedule for events through briefing related to dispositive motions and expert challenges and noting that further events in the case would be set by additional orders to be issued by the court in due course. On May 10, 2016, each of the parties in the Federal action filed motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude experts, followed by responses on June 3, 2016 and final reply memoranda on June 16, 2016. On July 7, 2016, the court in the Federal action rescheduled the trial to begin on October 25, 2016. Court-directed mediations were held at the end of September 2015 and June 2016 with the assistance of private mediators. Representatives of the American Water Defendants, Eastman Chemical, and the plaintiffs in both the Federal action and the state actions, as well as insurance carriers for certain of the defendants, participated in these mediation sessions. No resolution was reached and no further mediation discussions have been scheduled to date. American Water Works Company, Inc. is the largest and most geographically diverse investor-owned publicly-traded water and wastewater utility company in the United States, as measured both by operating revenue and population served. AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Ampio and the other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint remains pending. On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court in the Central District of California, Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the STEP study. The cases were consolidated, and on February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Sections 11 and 15 under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of common stock from January 13, 2014 through August 21, 2014, including purchasers in the Company's offering on February 28, 2014. On April 8, 2016, Ampio and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Ampio Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on primarily developing compounds that decrease inflammation by (i) inhibiting specific pro-inflammatory compounds by affecting specific pathways at the protein expression and at the transcription level; (ii) activating specific phosphatase or depleting available phosphate needed for the inflammation process; and (iii) decreasing vascular permeability. ANDALOU NATURALS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Merchandising Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA YORK and STEPHANIE TEACHOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. ANDALOU NATURALS, INC. Case No: 3:16-cv-00894-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill., August 9, 2016), alleges deceptive, unfair, and false merchandising practices regarding Defendant(s)' Andalou Naturals line of hair care products. Andalou Naturals, Inc. manufactures fruit stem cell-based skin care, hair care, bath, and body care products. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC 8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109 St. Louis, MO 63144 Phone: 314-258-0212 E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com - and - Stuart L. Cochran, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STUART L. COCHRAN, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (214) 300-1765 E-mail: scochran@scochranlaw.com ANGIE'S LIST: Nov. 8 Final Fairness Hearing in "Moore" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has scheduled a fairness hearing for November 8, 2016, in the case, Moore, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD. On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims for breaches of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or that the payments allegedly will impact the service provider letter-grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews about the provider and the provider's place in search-result rankings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was granted in part on August 7, 2015. In particular, the plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment were dismissed from the action. The parties proceeded to exchange extensive written and document discovery and conducted depositions. Discovery closed on April 14, 2016. During the discovery period, certain other cases with similar allegations also were filed by some of the same plaintiffs' counsel in federal court in California (Zygelman v. Angie's List, Inc., 3:16-cv-00276-SI) and New Jersey (Glick v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546-MCA-MAH). Following mediation sessions held on April 4, 2016 and April 12, 2016, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on April 19, 2016 to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. Among other relief, the settlement provides for a cash payment of up to $2,350 to create a fund for the payment of cash to settlement class members and for the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the court. Settlement class members will have the option of sharing in the cash fund or selecting a free period of membership of up to four months depending on the date and length of their membership with Angie's List. The settlement also provides certain prospective relief in the form of enhanced explanations in the Company's Membership Agreement and in responses to Frequently Asked Questions concerning, among other things, the advertising revenue earned from service providers. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a $3,500 contingent liability related to this matter in the first quarter of 2016, and this amount includes the cost of the cash fund described above as well as the payment of reasonable notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue the Company will forego as a result of certain class members selecting the option for a free period of membership. As part of the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel filed, and the Company did not oppose, a motion to amend the complaint in the Moore matter to add both the Zygelman and Glick plaintiffs as named plaintiffs for settlement purposes only, as well as a motion for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement. By order dated July 11, 2016, the court granted the motion to amend the complaint, and the conditional amended class action complaint was filed as of that date. On July 12, 2016, the court entered an order granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, which, among other things, ordered that notice of the settlement be provided to the settlement class and scheduled a fairness hearing for November 8, 2016. The proposed settlement remains subject to final court approval. ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Case in New Jersey Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the case, Glick v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546-MCA-MAH, has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On February 1, 2016, Gary Glick, an Angie's List member, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff alleged that the Company deceives its consumers by representing that service providers "can't pay" or "don't pay" to be on Angie's List, while concealing that service providers pay advertising fees to influence their search result ranking, and further asserts other claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Moore litigation. The plaintiff's complaint includes claims for breach of contract and for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Glick action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 13, 2016, in accordance with the aforementioned class action settlement. ANGIE'S LIST: "Zygelman" Case in N.D. Cal. Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the case, Zygelman v. Angie's List, Inc., 3:16-cv-00276-SI, has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On January 15, 2016, Michelle Zygelman, an Angie's List member, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff alleged claims substantially similar to those in the Glick action but is seeking relief under California consumer protection statutes. The Zygelman action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 14, 2016, in accordance with the aforementioned class action settlement. ANGIE'S LIST: Conditional Certification Bid in "Williams" Opposed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has filed its response brief in opposition to the motion for conditional certification in the case, Williams, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 1:16-cv-878. On April 20, 2016, a group of former employees filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay (i) wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other charges. A first and second amended complaint was filed, adding additional named plaintiffs, and the Company's answer to the second amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2016. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on June 10, 2016, and the Company filed its response brief in opposition to motion for conditional certification on July 15, 2016. The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established any reserve for this matter. ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Suit by 3 Former Employees in S.D. Ind. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on April 20, 2016, three former employees filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The case is, Crabtree, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 1:16-cv-877. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay (i) wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other charges. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in May 2016, adding one additional Indiana wage statute claim. The Company filed its answer and defenses on June 9, 2016. The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established any reserve for this matter. APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Deal for Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has approved a stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel in the merger class action lawsuit. On February 26, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") with Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"), and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger Sub"), pursuant to which the Company will acquire AMTG for an aggregate purchase price equal to 89.25% of AMTG's book value determined in accordance with the Merger Agreement, plus the assumption of $172,500 of AMTG's 8.0% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock (the "AMTG Preferred Stock"). The book value of AMTG, and therefore the actual purchase price payable, was determined as of July 22, 2016 (the "Pricing Date"), and will be subject to adjustment in the event that the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement does not occur by September 5, 2016. The aggregate number of shares of Company common stock issuable under the Merger Agreement is limited to 13,400,000 shares at a value of $16.75 per share, and the remainder of the consideration will be paid in cash. Upon the closing, each outstanding share of AMTG common stock will be converted into the right to receive (i) 0.417571 shares of Company common stock and (ii) $6.86 in cash, without interest; provided, however, that the cash portion of the merger consideration may be subject to certain adjustments. In addition, each share of AMTG Preferred Stock will be converted into one share of preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share, of a newly-designated series of the Company's preferred stock, which the Company expects will be designated as 8.00% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock. After the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed First Merger (as defined in the Merger Agreement), captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532 and Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16- 001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, (the "Court"). A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later filed in the Court captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., No. 24-C-16-002610. Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI, Merger Sub, Apollo and Athene and alleges, among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties to the AMTG stockholders and that the other corporate defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches. The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that the proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions with Athene are unfair and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleading disclosures and omits certain material information. The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the First Merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel, which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016. The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits. ARES CAPITAL: "Sutton" Shareholder Class Action Filed in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ares Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Larry Sutton on or about June 24, 2016, filed a putative shareholder class action allegedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of American Capital against the members of American Capital's board of directors in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland in connection with the American Capital Acquisition. The action alleges that the American Capital's directors failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by failing to take steps necessary to obtain for the shareholders the highest value available in the marketplace for their shares in the proposed American Capital Acquisition. The complaint further alleges that the directors exacerbated this failure by including deal protection devices in the proposed merger with the Company that precluded other bidders from making a higher offer to American Capital. A purported claim is asserted against the Company for aiding and abetting American Capital's directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed American Capital Acquisition until American Capital adopts a process to obtain a transaction providing the best available terms for the shareholders. In the event that the proposed American Capital Acquisition is completed, the complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Ares Capital is a specialty finance company that is a closed-end, non-diversified management investment company incorporated in Maryland. ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Toss Javelin Investors' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint remains pending. Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the "Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. On April 25, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C- 16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On July 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Defendants were to respond with their reply on August 11, 2016, at which time the Motion to Dismiss will be fully briefed and ripe for ruling from the Court. Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their outcome. ARMOUR and its subsidiaries, including JAVELIN, is a Maryland corporation formed to invest in and manage a leveraged portfolio of MBS and mortgage loans. ATLAS AIR: Settlement in Pricing Suit Awaits Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in a class action lawsuit related to alleged pricing practices is still subject to final court approval. The Company and Old Polar were named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the U.S. arising from allegations about the pricing practices of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers. These actions were all centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Polar was later joined as an additional defendant. The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of U.S., state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit sought treble damages and attorneys' fees. On January 7, 2016, the Company, Old Polar, and Polar entered into a settlement agreement to settle all claims by participating class members against the Company, Old Polar and Polar. The Company, Polar, and Old Polar deny any wrongdoing, and there is no admission of any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company, Old Polar and Polar have agreed to make installment payments over three years to settle the plaintiffs' claims, with payments of $35.0 million paid on January 15, 2016, $35.0 million due on or before January 15, 2017, and $30.0 million due on or before January 15, 2018. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on January 12, 2016. The settlement is still subject to final court approval. AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Sued in Cal. Over Reduced Insurance Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- RONALD HODGES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC628878 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief arising from Defendant's breach of its contracts with consumers in its adjustment of homeowner insurance claims for repairs. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant applies a discount of five percent from the total cost of repair when the repair estimate is written by a contractor who participates in Defendant's Member Preferred Repair Program. The Defendant applies the discount to the claim whether or not a Program participant actually performs the repair. Thus, while Defendant gives its insureds the impression that they are receiving a "discount", the Program is actually a means for Defendant to reduce the size of the insurance claim -- in some instances, below the cost of repair. Automobile Club of Southern California is the Southern California affiliate of the American Automobile Association federation of motor clubs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Denise H. Sze, Esq. MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229 5961 Facsimile: (310) 229 5763 - and - Taras Kick, Esq. G. James Strenio, Esq. Robert J. Dart, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APe 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395 2988 Facsimile: (310) 395 2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com James@kicklawfirm.com Robert@k:icklawfirin.com BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Clark" Suit in Ariz. Over "Data Breach" ------------------------------------------------------------- Kendra Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Banner Health, Case No: 2:16-cv-02696-SRB (D. Ariz., August 9, 2016), was filed on behalf of all others similarly situated whose personal and non-public information, including names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, credit card information, medical information (physician names, dates of service, clinical information, insurance information, etc.), and physician or provider credentials (DEA registration numbers, National Provider Identifiers, etc.) was allegedly compromised in a massive breach of Defendant Banner Health's computer servers. Banner Health is a health system operating in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming. It operates 29 hospitals, including three academic medical centers and other related health entities and services, with more than 47,000 employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul L. Stoller, Esq. Lincoln Combs, Esq. GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225 Phone: (602) 530-8054 Fax: (602) 530-8500 E-Mail: paul.stoller@gknet.com lincoln.combs@gknet.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Amends Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh, et al. v. Baylor College of Medicine, Harris County Hospital District, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00903 (S.D. Tex.), file their amended motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs seek to be class representatives for this class definition: i. All harmed victims of 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional Rights deprivations or subjections to deprivation of such rights in the course of providing health care services in Texas and by persons or entities acting under the color of law; ii. All harmed victims of conspiracy for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory with the United States with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, and said wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course of providing health care services in Texas; and iii. All harmed victims of any conspiracy or any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, to either directly or indirectly deprive any persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of Texas, and said wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the course of providing health care services. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Ernest C. Adimora- Nweke, Jr., Esq., of Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, and his firm's designated co-counsel or of counsel (if any) as Class Counsel. A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cojjRAa5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Jr. Esq. ADIMORA LAW FIRM 5100 Westheimer Rd., Suite 200 Telephone: (281) 940-5170 E-mail: Ernest@adimoralaw.com Defendant Harris County Hospital District d/b/a Harris Health System d/b/a Ben Taub Hospital is represented by: Ebon Swofford, Esq. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY L. Sara Thomas, Esq. DEPUTY MANAGING ATTORNEY 2525 Holly Hall, Suite 190 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (713) 566-6559 Facsimile: (713) 566-6558 E-mail: Ebon.Swofford@harrishealth.org Sara.thomas2@harrishealth.org Defendant Baylor College of Medicine and its employee defendants are represented by: Jeffrey B. McClure, Esq. Laura Trenaman, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 220-4200 Telecopier: (713) 220-4285 E-mail: jeffmcclure@andrewskurth.com ltrenaman@andrewskurth.com Defendant John Michael Halphen is represented by: John R. Strawn Jr., Esq. Andrew L. Pickens, Esq. STRAWN PICKENS LLP Pennzoil Place, South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 1850 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 659-9600 Facsimile: (713) 659-9601 E-mail: jstrawn@strawnpickens.com apickens@strawnpickens.com BBX CAPITAL: "Stein" Files Suit Over Merger with BFC ---------------------------------------------------- SHIVA STEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BBX CAPITAL CORP., JOHN E. ABDO, NORMAN H. BECKER, STEVEN M. COLDREN, WILLIS N. HOLCOMBE, JARETT S. LEVAN, ANTHONY P. SEGRETO, CHARLIE C. WINNINGHAM II, BFC FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and BBX MERGER SUBSIDIARY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-16-014713 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' failure to take action in obtaining the best value for the public shareholders' interest in BBX. On July 28, 2016, BBX announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with BFC (Merger Agreement) under which BBX's shareholders will be entitled to receive -- at their election -- either 5.4 shares of BFCs Class A common stock or $20.00 in cash for each share of BBX's Class A common stock held by them (Merger Consideration). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, BBX shareholders will have the right to elect to receive all cash, all stock, or a combination of cash and stock in exchange for their shares. The Plaintiff says consideration offered in the Proposed Transaction is inadequate as it fails to sufficiently account for synergies that may be realized through the Proposed Transaction as well as the value of BBX's future potential. If the Proposed Transaction is consummated, BBX stands to grow tremendously, and is poised to reap significant cost savings in its future business transactions. With BBX's solid history and recent success, it comes as no surprise that BFC would be eager to acquire the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C Komlossy, Esq. Ross Appel, Esq. KOMLOSSY LAW P.A. 4700 Sheridan St., Suite J Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 842 2021 Facsimile: (954) 416 6223 E-mail:ekomlossy@komlossylaw.com raa@komlossylaw.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Darya Kapulina-Filina, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212)661 1100 BEST WINGERS: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Godinez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Best Wingers LLC, Amgad Elhossieni, Anneka Elhossieni, Tony Elhossieni, Case No. 1:16-cv-06434 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 711 2nd Avenue New York, New York, 10016. Juan Gondinez is a pro se plaintiff. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa(R) -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District. The case is captioned HENRY EDWARD SAER, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NEXT OF KIN AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY ANTHONY SAER, DECEASED, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants. The lawsuit seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut Products Liability Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently designed and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling, prescribing information and patient medication guide which rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective. The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM), throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood clot. Plaintiff's Counsel Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Michael B. Lynch, Esq. The Michael Brady Lynch Firm 127 West Fairbanks Ave., Suite 528 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone (877) 513 9517 Facsimile (321) 972 3568 E-mail: Michael@mblynchfirm.com BULL ROGERS: "Gowens" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES GOWENS, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC Section 216(b) v. BULL ROGERS, INC. and HELEN MARIE WALLACE, individually, Case No. 2:16-cv-00919 (D.N.M., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bull Rogers, Inc., is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business in New Mexico. Helen Marie Wallace is Bull Rogers' president or director. The Defendants operate or have operated in interstate commerce, by among other things, dispatching labor and equipment to states including New Mexico and Texas. The Defendants have been involved in oilfield casing services in oilfields throughout New Mexico and Texas over the last three years. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com C LEVEL LLC: Accused by "Owens" Suit of Unpaid OT and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN OWENS, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. C LEVEL, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, and ANTHONY DENSON, an individual, Case No. 2:16-cv- OO628-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Constitution and common law for alleged (1) illegal tip pool, unpaid overtime and retaliation in violation of the FLSA, (2) unpaid minimum wages and retaliation in violation of the Florida Constitution, and (3) unjust enrichment. C Level, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company located in Bonita Springs, Florida. Anthony Denson is the sole manager of C Level. The Defendants own and operate the C Level Bistro & Wine Bar located in Bonita Springs, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 9990 Coconut Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com CALIX INC: Aug 26 Hearing to Approve Occam Merger Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2016, that the court has issued a scheduling order setting a hearing for August 26, 2016 to rule on the Settlement of a class action lawsuit. On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam Networks, Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled as Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint did not name Calix as a defendant. The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief. The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011 (the "Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non-opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continued to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount. Fact discovery in the case initially closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010. On April 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The ruling granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate entity, and accordingly, Occam was dismissed as a defendant in the action. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The court left in place the process-based claims against Occam's former CEO and CFO, and declined to grant summary judgment on separate claims that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained misleading disclosures and had material omissions. On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company, Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion sought additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's former financial advisor, and requested that the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions. On September 3, 2014, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to provide an affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery, and ordered discovery into defendants' document collection and review methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce additional documents. Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. ("Wilson Sonsini"), Occam's counsel and former defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants. On July 16, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies as a defendant, but granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Wilson Sonsini as a defendant. On July 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint adding Wilson Sonsini as a defendant in the lawsuit. Defendants filed their answers to the Third Amended Complaint on September 8, 2015. Trial on the matter commenced on April 11, 2016 before the Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 14, 2016, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding of a settlement in principle ("Settlement") to resolve all of the claims pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery and related claims. The Settlement terms provide that neither the Company nor any of its officers or directors would be required to make any contribution to the settlement consideration of $35 million to be paid for the benefit of the plaintiff class. The Company did not previously accrue any estimated loss in connection with this action and, as a result of the Settlement, will not recognize any loss related to this action. Further, the Company has incurred certain defense costs for which its insurance carriers denied coverage or that are otherwise in excess of coverage. These costs were recorded as operating expense in the Company's Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss) in the periods incurred. In connection with the Settlement (and separate from the settlement consideration), the Company would also receive a cash payment of approximately $4.5 million in partial recovery of such costs. On May 31, 2016, the parties signed the global settlement agreement reflecting the terms of the Settlement and filed the agreement with the court for approval. The court has issued a scheduling order setting a hearing for August 26, 2016 to rule on the Settlement and ordering, among other things, that lead plaintiffs notify the plaintiff class of the Settlement. The Settlement remains subject to the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery. As of June 25, 2016, the Company had not recorded any amounts related to this Settlement. Upon approval of the settlement, the Company expects to recognize the $4.5 million in partial recovery of out-of-pocket costs. The Company and the defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the litigation, and the Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. Since the closing of the merger, the Company has advanced defense costs related to this lawsuit. The Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors and officers named as defendants in this action against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims against such directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and certificate of incorporation. In addition, under the engagement letter between Occam and Jefferies, the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify Jefferies against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to Jefferies' engagement by Occam. The Company has paid fees and expenses incurred by Jefferies in connection with this matter pursuant to Jefferies indemnity demand under this agreement. The Company has incurred significant legal fees and costs defending this lawsuit and during the fiscal quarter ended March 26, 2016, the Company's defense costs exhausted its available Directors & Officers liability insurance coverage. The legal proceedings have been protracted as plaintiffs continue to seek additional discovery following the court's order re-opening discovery and with the addition of Wilson Sonsini as a defendant in the action in July 2015. Until the Settlement was reached, the Company also continued to incur significant litigation expenses that were not covered by insurance, including the Company's costs associated with the Jefferies indemnification obligations. For the three and six months ended June 25, 2016, the Company recorded litigation defense costs and expenses in excess of its insurance coverage of $2.9 million and $6.5 million, respectively, as operating expense in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss. CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends "Surrett" Student Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. The Company said, "On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008." "On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. "Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. "On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members referenced above should be compelled to arbitration. The case has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action." CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Wilson" Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal in the employment litigation, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, remains pending. The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. "On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. "The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties completed fact discovery as to the issue of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on January 16, 2016." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on appeal, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action," the Company said. CHEVRON STATIONS: "Williams" Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAKEISHA WILLIAMS, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON STATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 630392 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary damages, including full restitution from Defendants as a result of Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay all wages at the legal overtime rate due for overtime wages worked; failed to provide uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods; and failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements. The Defendants sell gasoline and convenience products at their retail stations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (323) 857 5900 Facsimile (310) 275 6301 CLEAN HARBORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- PASCUAL GONZALEZ on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. CLEAN HARBORS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC630385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12 2016), seeks to recover nominal, actual, and compensatory damages, pursuant to the Labor Code. The Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy of "clocking-out" Plaintiff and those similarly situated for 30- minute meal periods, even though Plaintiff and those similarly situated were suffered and/or permitted to work during these deduction periods, thereby deducting 30 minutes of paid time, including straight time and overtime. The Defendants own and operate trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and/or industrial work sites. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissal of Securities Case Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from the dismissal of the shareholder securities class action. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on October 5, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company's motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case. COPLEY PLAZA: "Saban" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Statute ----------------------------------------------------------- LOU SABAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COPLEY PLAZA HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-2497 (Ma. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks to recover damages including treble damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Massachusetts Wage Statute. The Copley Plaza allegedly engaged in a systematic scheme to alter time cards, with the result that hourly workers were not paid for all of the time they worked. The scheme was directed and enforced by senior hotel management and was motivated by a desire to improve the hotel's financial performance, at the expense of hourly workers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK. P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3260 Facsimile: (617) 488 2261 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Security Seeks Reductions of Property Values ------------------------------------------------------------ SECURITY PORTFOLIO IV LP, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-09674 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $200,000 to $1,000,000. The Plaintiffs allege that the 2016 values of the Property constitute unequal appraisals of their Property in that the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties or a sample of other properties consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to or of the same general kind or character as the Property; and/or that the values exceed the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted. The Plaintiffs are entitled to reductions of the values of the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lorri Michel, Esq. Raymond Gray, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. Natalie A. Maloney, Esq. MICHEL GRAY, LLP 812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477 0200 Facsimile: (512) 477 6636 E-mail: lorri@michelgray.com raymond@michelgray.com shane@michelgray.com natalie@michelgray.com DALLAS CENTRAL: ARC Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value ------------------------------------------------------- ARC TCMESTX001 LLC (Towne Center Plaza), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-09790 (Dal. Cty. Ct, Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property). In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $15,275,600, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: RPI Cedarhill Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value ----------------------------------------------------------------- RPI CEDARHILL LTD. (The Market at Cedar Hill Shopping Center), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09798 (Dal. Cty. Ct, Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property). In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $12,525,690, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: El Tahhan Sues Over Excessive Property Value ------------------------------------------------------------ MAAYEH EL TAHHAN, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09679 (Dal. Cir. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks remedies from Defendants due to its excessive assigned value to the Plaintiff's property for tax year (2015). The Defendant allegedly failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods and techniques as required by Property Tax Code; appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least en percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same violation of the Texas Constitution; and appraised the Property unequally because the appraised value of the Property exceeds the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Abtahi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT ABTAHI 1126 N Zang Blvd Dallas, TX 75203 Telephone: (214) 306 9696 Facsimile: (214) 432 1588 E-mail: Robert@rbalawyer.com DINER 84: Faces "Sibinski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Wendy Sibinski, and others similarly situated v. Diner 84 Inc. and Anestis Nikiforidis, Case No. 0:16-cv-61946-UU (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (305) 308-5619 E-mail: 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 DITECH FINANCIAL: Faces "Scally" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Ditech Financial, LLC. The case is captioned Kendall Scally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ditech Financial, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2016). The assigned Judge is William Q. Hayes. Ditech Financial, a mortgage company, lends and services residential mortgages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared M. Hartman, Esq. SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP 400 South Melrose, Suite 209 Vista, CA 92081 Telephone: (951) 234 0881 Facsimile: (888) 819 8230 E-mail: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: 9th Cir. Appeal in Investors' Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff's appeal in a shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. The consolidated lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary relief. On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2015. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2015, and the matter currently is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this consolidated lawsuit. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of this consolidated lawsuit, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Antitrust Class Action Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend an antitrust class action lawsuit in California. The Company said, "In September and October 2014, three putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws were filed against the Company and various other companies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that the defendants agreed to restrict competition through non-solicitation agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all animation and visual effect workers employed by the defendants during various periods between 2004 and 2010." "On May 25, 2016, the Court granted-in-part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss." DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: AACERS Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Ann Arbor City Employees Retirement System, a purported stockholder of the Company ("AACERS"), filed on June 27, 2016, a putative class action complaint against Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and controlling stockholder and a director in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On April 28, 2016, the Company, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") and Comcast Paris Newco, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into DreamWorks Animation, with DreamWorks Animation continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly- owned subsidiary of Comcast (the "Merger"). The complaint alleges that (1) Mr. Katzenberg, as the Company's controlling stockholder, breached his fiduciary duties to the Company's other stockholders by, among other things, entering into a consulting agreement with Comcast pursuant to which he will receive certain profits interests in two of the Company's majority-owned subsidiaries, (2) Mr. Katzenberg violated the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and thus breached a contract with the Company and the Company's other stockholders by entering into the consulting agreement, and (3) Mr. Katzenberg violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by entering into the consulting agreement. AACERS has asked the Court to, among other things, (i) order Mr. Katzenberg to share the profit interests resulting from the consulting agreement, pro rata, with the Company's other stockholders, and (ii) award AACERS's attorney's fees and other costs associated with the action. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bumba Sues Over Comcast Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Kenneth Bumba, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed on July 29, 2016, a putative class action complaint against the Company, Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and controlling stockholder and a director, each of the Company's other directors and Comcast in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On April 28, 2016, the Company, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") and Comcast Paris Newco, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into DreamWorks Animation, with DreamWorks Animation continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly- owned subsidiary of Comcast (the "Merger"). The complaint alleges that (1) Mr. Katzenberg breached his fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders by, among other things, entering into the consulting agreement with Comcast pursuant to which he will receive the profits interests and that the other directors violated their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by, among other things, allowing Mr. Katzenberg to enter into that agreement, (2) the directors violated the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and thus breached a contract with the Company and the Company's stockholders by allowing Mr. Katzenberg to enter into the consulting agreement, and (3) the directors violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by allowing Mr. Katzenberg to enter into the consulting agreement. The complaint also alleges that the information statement distributed to stockholders was materially deficient, that the Company violated its obligation under Delaware law to provide prompt written notice to other stockholders regarding the transaction and that Comcast aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. The plaintiff in the action has asked for relief similar to that requested in the AACERS lawsuit. DRIFTWOOD DAIRY: "Collins" Seeks Damages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------- DARRYL COLLINS and FRANK PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DRIFTWOOD DAIRY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630219 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks monetary damages and restitution under California Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay wages, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code. It also failed to pay their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California for all hours worked, missed (short, late, interrupted, and/or missed altogether) meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law; deprived Plaintiffs and the other class members of meal and/or rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the other class members to work during meal and/or rest periods without compensation; failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs and the other class members for all hours worked; and failed to pay all wages due to Plaintiffs and the other class members within the required time upon their discharge or resignation. Driftwood Dairy engages in the production and distribution of dairy and food service products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 EAST RIDGE: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rodolfo Silva and all others similarly situated v. East Ridge Retirement Village, Inc., and Jeffrey Merritt, Case No. 1:16-cv- 23481-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a retirement home located at 19301 SW 87th Ave, Cutler Bay, FL 33157. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com EEG INC: Sued for Over-charging of Salon Education Course --------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL JONES, KEISHA CAPPEL, ANNE OLIVER and WARREN YOUNG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EEG, INC., FRANK SCHOENEMAN, and MICHAEL D. BOUMAN, all conducting business as the "Empire Education Group", the Defendant, Case No. 160800812 (Phil. Cty. Ct., August 7, 2016), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, enjoining Defendants' policy of over-charging, directing Defendants to send a court- approved form of notice to all class members advising them of the alleged overcharges, and establishing a court-administered program to provide refunds to all class members, with the Defendants being ordered to pay the costs associated with such program. EEG provides education services. The Company offers courses in cosmetology, esthetics, and makeup artistry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215 564 1721 EIGHT O'CLOCK: Faces "Sorgenti" Suit in N.Y. Over Coffee Bags ------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM SORGENTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EIGHT O'CLOCK COFFEE COMPANY, Case No: 7:16-cv-06295- KMK (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), was filed on behalf of purchasers of specialty coffee bags of Eight O'Clock Coffee manufactured and/or marketed by Eight O'Clock Coffee Company. Eight O'Clock Coffee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated Coffee Company, a U.S. subsidiary of India-based Tata Coffee Limited, which is owned by Tata Global Beverages, one of the world's leading tea, coffee, and natural water companies. Tata Global Beverages itself is part of the Tata Group, a multinational conglomerate holding company based in Mumbai, India. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Robert J. Berg, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 331-0100 E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com rberg@denleacarton.com EMPIRE CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUZ ALJADAS and CLARE JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EMPIRE CITY LABORATORIES, INC., STEVE NISAN, and MICHAEL NISANOV, Case No: 1:16-cv-04428 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover unpaid overtime compensation. Defendants are in the business of providing laboratory diagnostic testing services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 943-9080 Fax: (212) 943-9082 ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Investors Sue in Georgia Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------ EndoChoice Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed on July 18, 2016, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against the Company, certain of the Company's current officers, certain current and former members of the Company's board of directors, and the underwriters of our initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaint alleges that the registration statement for our IPO contained false and misleading statements relating to sales of Fuse(R) and asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of EndoChoice common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, rescission and other relief. "We believe the claims and allegations are without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously," the Company said. "Based on the limited nature of the plaintiff's allegations, the early stage of the proceedings, the lack of discovery and because significant legal issues have yet to be raised and decided by the court, we have determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss in connection with the above matter is not reasonably estimable. While we believe the plaintiff's claims and allegations are without merit, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome and resolution of this suit. An adverse outcome could materially and adversely affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows in any particular reporting period." EndoChoice Holdings is a medical device company focused exclusively on designing and commercializing a platform of innovative products and services for gastrointestinal, or GI, caregivers. ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Court Asked to Decertify & Dismiss OT Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that counsel to the plaintiff in the "Banta" class action has filed a stipulation requesting that the Court decertify and dismiss the overtime claims. Four different putative class action lawsuits were filed against AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently been consolidated into a single action. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in compliance with California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and attorneys' fees under California law. While certification of the rest period claims in the consolidated Karapetian/ Aguilar case was denied, the Court certified classes on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that AMR has an unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees. On October 13, 2015, the Court decertified all classes in the Karapetian/ Aguilar case, a decision that is being appealed. In the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that plaintiff's counsel appealed. The appeal was denied because of the pendency of other class and representative claims in the case. The Court indicated that it would certify a class on overtime claims; however, in July 2016, Banta's counsel filed a stipulation requesting that the Court decertify and dismiss the overtime claims. In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern California, a decision that is being appealed; while the Court certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any. ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over AmSurg Corp. Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported stockholder of the Company has filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit against the members of the Company's Board and Barclays PLC in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware related to the proposed Merger with AmSurg Corp. On June 15, 2016, the Company, AmSurg Corp., a Tennessee corporation ("AmSurg"), and New Amethyst Corp., a newly formed Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of AmSurg ("New Amethyst"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company and AmSurg will combine in an all-stock merger of equals. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, AmSurg will merge with and into New Amethyst ("Merger 1"), with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation, immediately after which the Company will merge with and into New Amethyst ("Merger 2" and together with Merger 1, the "Mergers"), with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation. Upon the closing of the Mergers, the name of the combined company will be changed to "Envision Healthcare Corporation". Following the announcement of the proposed Mergers, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit against the members of the Company's Board and Barclays PLC in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware on July 15, 2016. The lawsuit alleges that the members of the Company's Board violated their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Mergers and that Barclays PLC aided and abetted those breaches. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Mergers from proceeding or, alternatively, damages in the event the Mergers are consummated. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. FITZGERALD EQUITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lugo" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fitzgerald Equity Partners, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-04977-WJM-MF (D.N.J., August 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Fitzgerald Equity Partners, LLC operates a debt collection agency located in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Hendley" Securities Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS B. HENDLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., GEORGE E. DEESE, ALLEN L. SHIVER, R. STEVE KINSEY, and KARYL H. LAUDER, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06417 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Flower Foods securities between February 7, 2013, and August 10, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Flower Foods is a Georgia corporation with its principal executive offices located in Thomasville, Georgia. Flower Foods is a food company that operates two business segments: a direct-store- delivery segment and a warehouse delivery segment. The DSD Segment operates 39 bakeries that market a wide variety of fresh bakery foods, including fresh breads, buns, rolls, tortillas, and snack cakes. The Warehouse Segment operates 10 bakeries that produce snack cakes, breads and rolls for national retail, foodservice, vending, and co-pack customers, which are delivered through customers' warehouse channels and one bakery mix plant. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Throughout the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Plaintiff explains, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the Company was improperly classifying employees as independent contractors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com RProngay@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com FORTRESS SECURITY: "Real" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- RAMIRO REAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORTRESS SECURITY CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630088 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay compensation and overtime compensation in a timely fashion. Fortress Security, a private security services company, provides a range of specialized monitoring and professional protection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC David Yeremian, Esq. 535 N, Brand Blvd Suite 705 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com G1 TOWING: "Castaneda" Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFONSO CASTANEDA, in his individual and representative capacity, the Plaintiff, v. G1 TOWING, INC., a California Corporation; G1 TOWING SACRAMENTO, INC., a California Corporation; RAUL GARCIA and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630124 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks to recover damages, uninterrupted off-duty meal and rest periods, minimum and overtime wages, accurate wage statements, timely payment of all wages upon termination, accurate payroll records of daily hours worked, minimum wages, and payment of wages for all hours worked, among other things, under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked shifts in excess of eight hours. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other Aggrieved Employees were not paid for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked. The Defendants operate a tow truck business throughout California including Los Angeles County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496 4818 Facsimile: (310) 510 6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com GANDARA MENTAL: "Romero" Seeks Overtime Wages Under Hour Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCIS JEREMY ROMERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GANDARA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., KJMBERLY KLIMCZUK, and STERLING HALL, the Defendants, Case No.182316 (Ma. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks relief for the Defendants' violations of state wage and hour laws. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay its Therapeutic Staff wages for all hours worked and failed to pay them overtime wages in violation of state wage and hour law. The Defendants operate an in-home mental health care agency that employs "therapeutic mentors" and "therapeutic training and support" employees who provide assistance to the Defendants' medical clinicians. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Charlotte Drew, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338 9400 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Pending in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the case, Estate of Helen F. Walsh, Deceased v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al. The Company said, "In a complaint filed in July 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York and Genworth Life Insurance Company were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Estate of Helen F. Walsh, Deceased v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint alleges breach of contract involving optional inflation increase benefit riders on certain long-term care insurance policies and seeks unspecified actual damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We intend to vigorously defend this action." GENWORTH FINANCIAL: $219MM Securities Case Settlement Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has approved the $219 million settlement in the securities class action lawsuit. In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company said, "On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. We engaged in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, continuing into the first quarter of 2016, and previously accrued $25 million in connection with this matter, during the fourth quarter of 2015, which was the amount of our self-insured retention on our executive and organizational liability insurance program." "On March 11, 2016, in connection with the mediation, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 1, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement. The settlement provides for a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but we are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further litigation. The agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class of $219 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, of which $150 million will be paid by our insurance carriers, and $69 million pre-tax will be paid by Genworth. Our payment was made into an escrow account during the first quarter of 2016. We also incurred additional legal fees and expenses of approximately $10 million pre-tax, for a total additional pre-tax incurred amount of $79 million in the first quarter of 2016. "On April 13, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, provisional certification of the class for settlement purposes only, and issuance of notice to settlement class members. The Court held a hearing on July 20, 2016 and approved the settlement. As a result of the approved settlement, all coverage available to Genworth under our 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program was exhausted. Therefore, Genworth does not have coverage under the program to pay any future settlements or judgments in relation to litigation brought during the 2014 policy year, including the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., case." GENWORTH FINANCIAL: City of Hialeah Employees' Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the action by City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System. The Company said, "In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation." "On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's June 16, 2015 order denying our motion to dismiss which the court denied on March 3, 2016. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. "We have exhausted all coverage under our 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program applicable to this case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this litigation." GNC HOLDINGS: 28 DMAA & Aegeline Product Liability Claims Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, the Company was named in 28 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of June 30, 2016, the Company was named in 28 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these personal injury cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early stages, and any losses that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party vendors with regard to these matters, although the Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to its insurer. GNC HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Tuesday in "Brewer" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing regarding final Court approval of the settlement in the class action by Charles Brewer is scheduled for August 23, 2016. In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims. In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class. In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in September 2015. On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in the aggregate, including attorneys' fees and costs. Following a hearing on April 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, which remains subject to final Court approval. A hearing regarding final Court approval is currently scheduled for August 23, 2016. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2 million previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015. GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defending "Naranjo" Meal & Rest Break Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a case by Elizabeth Naranjo. On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations. As of June 30, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's quarterly report. GROUPON INC: Settlement in Securities Litigation Granted Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has entered an order providing final approval of the settlement and final judgment, dismissing with prejudice, the case, In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company was a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock. The case was pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. In the first quarter of 2016, the parties entered into a term sheet to settle the litigation that provides for a settlement payment to the class of $45.0 million in cash, including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and final release and also includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the other defendants. On April 7, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 21, 2016, a $45.0 million settlement payment was made into an escrow account. On July 13, 2016, the Court entered an order providing final approval of the settlement and final judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice. The Company was fully reserved for the settlement amount as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. GROUPON INC: Appeal in Marketing & Sales Practices Case Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal challenging the approval of the settlement in the case, In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, was dismissed on June 23, 2016, and the settlement became final and non-appealable as of that date. In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The consolidated actions are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. In July 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding a settlement involving a combination of cash and Groupon credits, worth a total of $8.5 million. On March 23, 2016, the district court granted final approval of the settlement over various objections posed by two individuals and entered judgment pursuant to the settlement. In April 2016, the two individuals who had objected filed notices of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. One appeal challenged the district court's approval of the class action settlement; the other appeal challenged the district court's denial of the objector's request for an award of attorney's fees. The appeal challenging the approval of the settlement was dismissed on June 23, 2016, and the settlement became final and non-appealable as of that date. The case was dismissed with prejudice and settlement claims are being validated and processed. The Company was fully reserved for the settlement amount as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Motion to Amend "Halloran" Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no opposition has been filed to the motion to amend the first amended complaint, which remains pending. On February 19, 2016, the Company was served with a notice of a summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against ISO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut titled Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al. As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, the putative class action is brought by four policyholders on behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders in eastern Connecticut who allege that their homeowner's insurance carriers have denied or will deny their claims for damage to their homes caused by defective concrete. The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against certain insurers and seeks declaratory relief as to more than 100 other insurers. It also alleges that ISO as the drafter of the standardized policy language at issue violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices ("CUTPA") and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA"). The plaintiffs ask that the Court certify a class of persons similarly situated and seek relief in the form of the cost for the replacement of their concrete foundations, and a declaratory judgment that all of the defendant insurance carriers are obligated to provide coverage for claims resulting from the defective concrete as well as, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, adding a number of insurer defendants and amending their damages claim to include punitive damages. After defendants indicated that they would be filing motions to dismiss the first amended complaint at a Rule 16 Conference on April 12, 2016, the Court gave plaintiffs until May 6, 2016 to move for leave to file a second amended complaint. On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion to amend the first amended complaint with a proposed second amended complaint, which did not name ISO or the Company as a defendant. No opposition was filed to the motion to amend, which remains pending. HARRIS COUNTY: Eagle Creek Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value -------------------------------------------------------------- EAGLE CREEK ACQUISITION LLC (FALLS AT EAGLE CREEK APARTMENTS), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-53520 (Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief. According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com Kdonovan@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: FCL Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value ------------------------------------------------------ FCL ACQUISITION LLC (FALLS AT COPPPER LAKE APARTMENTS), the Plaintiff, v. Harris County Appraisal District, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-53522 (Tex. Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief. According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com Kdonovan@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: Jones Road Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value ------------------------------------------------------------- JONES ROAD ACQUISTION LLC (RESERVE AT JONES ROAD), the Plaintiff, v. Harris County Appraisal District, the Defendant, Case No. 2016- 53461 (Tex. Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief. According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's property represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com Kdonovan@gpd.com HARRIS COUNTY: Yorktown Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value ----------------------------------------------------------- YORKTOWN ACQUISTION LLC (YORKTOWN CROSSING APRATMENTS), the Plaintiff, v. Harris County Appraisal District, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-53498 (Harris Cty. Ct., Aug. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief. According to the complaint, the value placed on the Plaintiff's property allegedly represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001 6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com Kdonovan@gpd.com HOMZ MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sauer" Suit in Western Dist. of Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Homz Management Corp. The case is captioned John Sauer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Homz Management Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00557 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 9, 2016). HOMZ Management offers residences in locations across Wisconsin and Iowa. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Jesse R. Dill, Esq. Scott Stanton Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 200 S. Executive Drive, Suite 205 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780 1953 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com jdill@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com HUNTSMAN CORP: Fails to Shake Off Consumer Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has substantially denied a motion to dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing titanium dioxide. On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of 9 states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed another motion to dismiss." "On June 13, 2016, the court substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state. The Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to this claim and could incur additional costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us. Because of the overall complexity of this case, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have made no accrual with respect to this claim." IDEAL TELECOM: Sued in Florida Cir. Ct. Over Junk Faxing -------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence jay Davis, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ideal Telecom Solutions, Inc.; ITS Telecommunication Systems Inc.; ITS, Inc.; Ideal Time Solutions Inc., an inactive Florida Corporation by its President, Christopher Baker; and Shazam Network Inc., a foreign corporation, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-16-014695 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to recover damages and to put a stop to junk faxing by the Defendants. The Defendants allegedly blasted thousands of junk faxes statewide in direct violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA) and the regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. The Defedants' violations include, without limitation, the facsimile transmission of unsolicited advertisement on October 10, 2012 and February 6, 2013 sent to Plaintiff's facsimile telephone number. Telecom Solutions serves many industries. It offers outsourced marketing that can be quickly customized to solve unique advertising objectives. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank F. Owen, Esq. FRANK F. OWEN & ASSOCIATES PA 1091 Ibis Avenue, Miami Springs FL 33166 Telephone: (954) 964 8000 Facsimile: (305) 984 8915 E-mail: FFO@Castlepalms.com IESI MD CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Poe" Suit Asserts -------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARD POE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. IESI MD CORPORATION, a/k/a PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS, Case No. 8:16-cv-02861-TDC (D. Md., August 12, 2016), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law by forcing its employees to work a substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all compensation due. IESI MD Corporation, also known as Progressive Waste Solutions, is a waste collection and recycling company with many locations throughout the United States and Canada. IESI is a Domestic For Profit Business Corporation, registered to do business in the State of Maryland, with a principal place of business in The Woodlands, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Kiely, Esq. MATTHEW E. KIELY, LLC 201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 625-9330 Facsimile: (410) 625-9309 E-mail: kiely@meklawllc.com - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com IMS HEALTH: Has Not Yet Responded to Motion for Injunction ---------------------------------------------------------- IMS Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants have not yet responded to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. On May 3, 2016, the Company and Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. entered into a definitive merger agreement, pursuant to which the companies will be combined. The merged company will be renamed Quintiles IMS Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the merger agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive 0.3840 shares of Quintiles common stock for each share of IMS common stock. Upon completion of the merger, the Company's shareholders will own approximately 51.4 percent of the shares of the combined company on a fully diluted basis and Quintiles shareholders will own approximately 48.6 percent of the combined company on a fully diluted basis. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals and approval by both IMS and Quintiles shareholders, and is expected to close early in the fourth quarter of 2016. On May 16, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit (Chiu v. Bousbib et al., C.A. No. 12340-CB) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the members of the IMS Health board of directors. An amended complaint in the Chiu action was filed on June 29, 2016. In general, the complaint alleges that the members of the IMS Health board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to IMS Health stockholders by, among other things, approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair and conflicted process. The amended complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed June 3, 2016 in connection with the proposed transaction is materially misleading. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the transaction, rescissionary damages in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On July 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction. The defendants have not yet responded to the plaintiff's motion. "We believe plaintiff's allegations are without merit, reject all claims raised by plaintiff and intend to vigorously defend this matter," the Company said. INTEX RECREATION: "Mirescu" Suit Transferred to S.D. of Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Georgeta Mirescu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Terence Duffy, 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, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01682, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-Cv-00210 to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. George C Hanks, Jr. Intex Recreation designs and distributes airbeds, above ground pools, and spas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M Tamburelli, Esq. Charles T Spagnola, Esq. Eliot F Krieger, Esq. SULLIVAN KRIEGER TRUONG SPAGNOLA AND KLAUSNER LLP 444 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 1700 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 597 7070 Facsimile: (562) 597 7772 - and - Thomas A Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC 77 West Washington Street Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 Facsimile: (312) 440 4180 The Defendants are represented by: Tarifa Belle Laddon, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 1990 South Bundy Drive Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 500 2090 Facsimile: (310) 500 2091 - and - Gilbert Lee, Esq. Daniel Manning Hayes, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312 2000 Facsimile: (310) 312 3100 JAMES MCFADDEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Weisberg" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. James McFadden and Dan Pinar, Case No. 2:16- cv-06048 (C.D. Cal., August 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. The Defendants provide dental restoring and enhancing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Anew -------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. dollar LIBOR- related putative class actions and most U.S. dollar LIBOR-related individual actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and remanded the case to the District Court to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust claims. JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved to dismiss the antitrust claims in July 2016. KARAMPELAS INVESTMENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE HERNANDEZ, and RUBEN GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KARAMPELAS INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a Gyro Palace and JOHN A. KARAMPELAS, Case No. 2:16-cv-01077- CNC (E.D. Wisc., August 12, 2016), alleges that the Defendants did not pay their cooks, cashiers and prep cooks, including the Plaintiffs, overtime premium wages at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Karampelas Investments, Inc., doing business as Gyro Palace, is a Wisconsin Corporation with a principal place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Karampelas operates two Gyro Palace locations located in Milwaukee and Glendale, Wisconsin. Niko A. Karampelas is the owner of Gyro Palace. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer Murshid, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie Street, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com LA QUINTA: Defending Against "Beisel" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed on April 25, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March Secondary Offering") and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from February 25, 2015 through September 17, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The complaint names as defendants the Company, certain current and former Company officers, and certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, among others. The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained materially false and misleading information and that the Company as well as certain current and former officers made false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to analysts during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. MARATHON PETROLEUM: MarkWest Merger Litigation Now Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the litigation relating to the MarkWest Merger is now dismissed. In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims challenging the MarkWest Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MarkWest. In August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs who purport to be unitholders of MarkWest. On September 9, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into one action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, now captioned In re MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MarkWest GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLX, asserting in connection with the MarkWest Merger and related disclosures that, among other things, (i) the MarkWest GP Board breached its duties in approving the MarkWest Merger with MPLX and (ii) MPC, MPLX, MPLX GP, and Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted such breaches. On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, but the Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate a fee application by the plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On March 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an application for reimbursement of approximately $2 million of legal fees and expenses. On May 17, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew the fee application and the case is now dismissed. MARKETO INC: Defending "Porwal" Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- Marketo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Porwal v. Marketo, Inc. et al., Case No. 16CIV00265, was filed on July 5, 2016, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo against Marketo, its directors, Vista, Parent, and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges, generally, that Marketo's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Marketo stockholders by seeking to sell Marketo through an allegedly defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those purported breaches. The lawsuit also alleges that defendants have failed to disclose all material facts concerning the proposed Merger to stockholders. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, damages, rescission of the proposed Merger to the extent it is consummated, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 27, 2016, Marketo entered into a Merger Agreement with Milestone Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Parent), and Milestone Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the Merger), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (Vista). Marketo, Inc. is a provider of a cloud-based Engagement Marketing Platform that is purpose-built to enable organizations ranging from small and medium businesses (SMBs) to the world's largest enterprises to engage in modern relationship marketing. MARKETO INC: Request for TRO in "Rosati" Denied ----------------------------------------------- Marketo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has denied plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Company's merger deal. On July 12, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Rosati v. Marketo, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-3907, was filed in the United States District for the Court Northern District of California against Marketo and its directors. The lawsuit alleges, generally, that Marketo and its directors violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by the SEC pursuant to Section 14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuit also alleges that defendants have failed to disclose all material facts concerning the proposed Merger to stockholders. The lawsuit also alleges that Marketo's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Marketo stockholders by conducting an inadequate sales process and agreeing to a transaction that provides Marketo's stockholders with inadequate consideration. On July 21, 2016, the plaintiff filed a request for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote. On July 26, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's request. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, damages, rescission of the proposed Merger to the extent it is consummated, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 27, 2016, Marketo entered into a Merger Agreement with Milestone Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Parent), and Milestone Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the Merger), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (Vista). Marketo, Inc. is a provider of a cloud-based Engagement Marketing Platform that is purpose-built to enable organizations ranging from small and medium businesses (SMBs) to the world's largest enterprises to engage in modern relationship marketing. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces ERISA Suit by 401(k) Planholders --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID B. TRACEY, DANIEL GUENTHER, MARIA T. NICHOLSON, CORRINNE R. FOGG, AND VAHIK MINAIYAN, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the MIT Supplemental 401(k) Plan, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, THE MIT SUPPLEMENTAL 401(K) PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, ISRAEL RUIZ, MARC BERNSTEIN, GLENN DAVID ELLISON, S.P. KOTHARI, GUNTHER ROLAND, LORRAINE A. GOFFE- RUSH, GLEN SHOR, PAMELA WELDON, THOMAS M. WIEAND, AND BARTON ZWIEBACH, Case No: 1:16-cv-11620-NMG (D. Mass., August 9, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class of participants and beneficiaries of the MIT Supplemental 401(k) Plan over alleged breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Ste. 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 607-3260 Fax: (617) 488-2261 E-Mail: steve@fairworklaw.com - and - Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael W. Wolf, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. James Redd, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-6115 Fax: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com jredd@uselaws.com MEDIA MIX: Faces "Affolder" Suit in Central Dist. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Media Mix 365 LLC. The case is captioned Matthew Affolder, Individually and on behalf all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Long Nicholas and Media Mix 365 LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01470 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2016). Media Mix is in the communication services industry. The Plaintiff appears pro se. MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Two Merger Class Actions Filed in S.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- Memorial Resource Development Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that alleged stockholders of the Company filed in July 2016 two class action lawsuits against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors relating to a merger. On May 15, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Range Resources Corporation ("Range"), a Delaware corporation, and Medina Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Range ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth, the Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Range ("the Merger"). The lawsuits are styled (i) Roger Mariani v. Memorial Resource Development Corp., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-2042, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division; and (ii) Joel Morris v. Memorial Resource Development Corp., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-02183, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The Morris action also names Range and Merger Sub as additional defendants." "Plaintiffs allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger omits allegedly material information concerning, in general and among other things, (i) the valuation analyses prepared by Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays") and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") in connection with their fairness opinions regarding the Merger, (ii) the financial projections utilized by Barclays and Morgan Stanley and (iii) the background of the Merger. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs allege that (i) the defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) members of our board of directors have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also allege, in general and among other things, that the terms of the Merger are (i) unfair to our stockholders and (ii) the result of an inadequate process. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin us from proceeding with or consummating the Merger. To the extent that the Merger is consummated before injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiffs seek to have the Merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not yet served the defendants, and our date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the lawsuit has not yet been set. "We cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuits or any others that might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the lawsuits. We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits." MINNESOTA: Faces "Gamble" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- David Le Roy Gamble, Cyrus Patrick Gladden II, Jerrad William Wailand, Clarence Anotnia Washington and all others similarly situated v. Minnesota State-Operated Services, Minnesota State Industries, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Department of Human Services, The State of Minnesota, Emily Johnson Piper, Shelby Richardson and any John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 0:16-cv- 02720-JRT-JSM (D. Minn., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for Civil Rights Act violation. The Defendants operate the state government of Minnesota. David Le Roy Gamble, Cyrus Patrick Gladden II, Jerrad William Wailand, Clarence Anotnia Washington are pro se plaintiffs. MKS INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Pincon and Chung Cases ----------------------------------------------------- MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the consolidated Pincon and Chung cases. On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and certain members of Newport's former board of directors. The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016 (the "Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and then-current members of Newport's board of directors. Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A- 16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of the Newport's stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then-current members of Newport's former board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief. On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the complaints have no merit and the Company, Newport, Merger Sub and the named directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims. MKS Instruments is a global provider of instruments, subsystems and process control solutions that measure, control, power, monitor and analyze critical parameters of advanced manufacturing processes to improve process performance and productivity. NABORS INDUSTRIES: Preliminary Settlement Discussions Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that preliminary settlement discussions are underway in a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded." "On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). "On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case remains pending. Nabors and the C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a hearing was held April 26, 2016 and we await the Court's ruling. Preliminary settlement discussions are underway. NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Rabin" Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------ Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal from the dismissal of the case, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., remains pending. The Company said, "we were named as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 18, 2016. Particularly given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously." NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Providence" Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal from the dismissal of the case, Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., remains pending. The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high- frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act." "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. "The court heard oral argument on the motion on June 18, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. "The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously." NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Lanier" Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal from the dismissal of the cases, Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., remains pending. The Company said, "we are named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches." "On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January 16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. "The plaintiff has appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on March 3, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the appeal vigorously." NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA -------------------------------------------------------------- DR. ALAN SACERDOTE, DR. HERBERT SAMUELS, MARK CRISPIN MILLER, PATRICK LAMSON-HALL, MARIE E. MONACO, AND DR. SHULAMITH LALA STRAUSSNER, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York University Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No: 1:16- cv-06284 (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2016), alleges breach of the Employee Retirement Income Stability Act on behalf of the New York University Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration. New York University is a private, nonsectarian American research university based in New York City. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq, Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq. James Redd, IV, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-6115 Fax: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com shoeplinger@uselaws.com jredd@uselaws.com NOBILIS HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss "Schott" Suit Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Schott v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al., is under advisement. The Company said, "After the Company announced it would be restating its 2014 annual financial statements and 2015 first and second quarter interim financial statements, one complaint, Schott v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, our former chief executive officer and our current chief financial officer. The complaint seeks class action status on behalf of our shareholders and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the restatement and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants." "In response, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 7, 2016. The Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants. "On June 1, 2016 the court heard oral arguments on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. The motion is under advisement. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter." Nobilis Health Corp. owns and manages health care facilities in the States of Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of ambulatory surgery centers and acute-care surgical hospitals. NOBILIS HEALTH: "Capelli" Suit Underway in Ontario -------------------------------------------------- Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a statement of claim (complaint), Vince Capelli v Nobilis Health Corp. et. al, was filed on January 8, 2016 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under court file number CV-16-544173 naming Nobilis Health Corp., certain current and former officers and the Company's former auditors as defendants. The Company said, "The statement of claim seeks to advance claims on behalf of the plaintiff and on behalf of a class comprised of certain of our shareholders related to, among other things, alleged certain violations of the Ontario Securities Act and seeks damages in the amount of C$80 million plus interest. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter." Nobilis Health Corp. owns and manages health care facilities in the States of Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of ambulatory surgery centers and acute-care surgical hospitals. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palacci" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marlene Palacci, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv- 04518(E.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. NorthStar Location Services, LLC provides full-service receivables debt collection solution. Marlene Palacci is a pro se plaintiff. ONEOK INC: Updates on Gas Index Pricing Litigation -------------------------------------------------- ONEOK, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, provided updates on the Gas Index Pricing Litigation. The Company said, "In May 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada ("the Court") entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of us and our affiliate ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. ("OESC") in Reorganized FLI, Inc. previously reported in our Annual Report. The Court determined that the plaintiff's claim is barred by a release obtained in a prior lawsuit against us and OESC. Upon entry of a final judgment, Reorganized FLI, Inc. may pursue an appeal of this determination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." "In March 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged against us and our affiliates, OESC and Kansas Gas Marketing Company, in the following putative class action lawsuits, previously reported in our Annual Report, that claimed damages resulting from alleged market manipulation or false reporting of prices to gas index publications by us and others: Learjet, Arandell, Heartland Regional Medical Center, and NewPage. The amount we expect to pay to settle these cases is not material to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows and is expected to be paid with cash on hand. "This agreement in principle to settle does not apply to the Sinclair case, previously reported in our Annual Report. We expect that future charges, if any, from the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material to our results of operations, financial position or cash flows." ORBITAL ATK: Violates Securities Laws, "Knurr" Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN KNURR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., DAVID W. THOMPSON, and GARRETT E. PIERCE, Case No. 1:16-cv-01031-TSE-MSN (E.D. Virg., August 12, 2016), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Orbital securities between June 1, 2015, and August 9, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Orbital develops and produces aerospace, defense, and aviation- related products for the U.S. Government, allied nations, prime contractors, and other customers in the United States and internationally. The Company was formed through a February 2015 merger between Orbital Sciences Corporation and Alliant Techsystems Inc. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Dulles, Virginia. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005-3965 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jaHeberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com PACIFIC COAST: Preliminary Approval of "Welch" Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are seeking preliminary approval of a settlement. On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action. On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the consolidated action, and are currently seeking preliminary approval of the settlement by the court. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action. PASTEUR MEDICAL: "Santana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amado Santana, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Pasteur Medical Group, LLC a/k/a Pasteur Medical Center and Jose Sotolongo, Case No. 1:16-cv-23475-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide a complete range of medical services including transportation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RELYPSA INC: Faces "Lu" Class Suit Over Proposed Sale to Galenica ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY LU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RELYPSA, INC., DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN, JOHN P. BUTLER, PAUL J. HASTINGS, KENNETH J. HILLAN, M.B.Ch.B., DAVID W.J. MCGIRR, JOHN A. ORWIN, THOMAS J. SCHUETZ, M.D., Ph.D., and HELEN TORLEY, M.B.Ch.B., M.R.C.P., Case No. 3:16-cv-04605-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 12, 2016), is a shareholder class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arises in connection with the proposed acquisition of Relypsa by Galenica AG, and Vifor Pharma USA Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that Relypsa's board of directors forced through a sale of the Company in order to reap personal benefits the Directors negotiated with the Buyer to the detriment of Relypsa's public stockholders. The Buyer has offered Relypsa investors $32 per share in cash, or a total of approximately $1.53 billion. The Agreement and Plan of Merger, is dated July 20, 2016. Relypsa is a biopharmaceutical company spearheading the discovery, development and commercialization of polymer-based medicines to treat conditions that are often overlooked and under treated. Relypsa is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Redwood, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Non-party Galenica AG is a public limited company existing under the laws of Switzerland. Non-party Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Galenica. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com - and - Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 Facsimile: (302) 482-3612 E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 601-2610 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com REVCLAIMS LLC: "Hargett" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Hargett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Revclaims LLC, St Bernards Hospital Inc., St Bernards Community Hospital Corporation, Baptist Health, White River Health System Inc., and John Does 1-100, Case No. CV- 16-00449, was removed from the Craighead County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Jonesboro). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 00200-JM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. James M. Moody Jr. Revclaims LLC helps large hospitals and health systems, community hospitals, and trauma centers nationwide boost revenue and reduce accounts receivable days by increasing injury claims recoveries in record time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon W. Lacy, Esq. WILCOX & LACY, PLC 600 South Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 931 3101 Facsimile: (870) 931 3102 E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com - and - Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq. 324 South Main Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336 0155 Facsimile: (870) 934 8887 E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq. Ryan M. Wilson, Esq. Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq. WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A. Post Office Box 3077 Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077 Telephone: (870) 932 0900 Facsimile: (870) 932 2553 E-mail: jpuryear@wpmfirm.com rwilson@wpmfirm.com mmayfield@wpmfirm.com - and - Paul D. Waddell, Esq. Sam Waddell, Esq. WADDELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC Post Office Box 1700 Jonesboro, AR 72403-1700 Telephone: (870) 931 1700 E-mail: pwaddell@wcjfirm.com swaddell@wcjfirm.com - and - James D. Robertson, Esq. Robert L. Henry, III, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372 6175 E-mail: jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com rhenry@barberlawfirm.com - and - Alfred F. Tom Thompson, III, Esq. Casey P. Castleberry, Esq. MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY Post Office Box 2595 Batesville, AR 72503-2595 Telephone: (870) 793 3821 E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com SAIGON CAFE: Faces "Qian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Jia Hu Qian, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated v. Saigon Cafe 89 Inc., Thai Season Corp., Nipa Thai Restaurant Corp., Spice Chinese Restaurant Inc., Hang Lin, Bi Yue Zou, and Yong Zhong Wang, Case No. 1:16-cv-06441 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Manhattan located at 612 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com SAPUTO CHEESE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GOMEZ, on behalf or herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630533 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug 12, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages including liquidated damages, under Labor Code. The Plaintiff was allegedly not properly paid all wages. Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at least minimum wages for pre-shift hours she was required to work. Nor was she paid overtime wages for hours she was consistently required to work, in excess of her shift and which exceeded eight hours on a given day. Saputo is a Montreal-based Canadian dairy company. Founded as a cheese making company in 1954 by Italian immigrant Giuseppe Saputo, today Saputo's business includes dairy products, and it is the tenth largest dairy processor in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Enoch J. Kim, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 8380 Facsimile: (818) 230 0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com enoch@yeremianlaw.com SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Karbash" Sues Over Sale to Nichi-Iko ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY KARBASH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ROBERT FLANAGAN, ALLAN OBERMAN, ANTHONY KRIZMAN, MARY TAYLOR BEHRENS, MICHAEL FEKETE, SHLOMO YANAI, NICHI-IKO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and SHEPARD VISION, INC., Case No: 1:16-cv-07973 (N.D. Ill., August 9, 2016), was filed pursuant to a tender offer whereby Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Shepard Vision, Inc. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.sagentpharma.com/is a biopharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 212-4401 E-mail: tbell@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: nespole@whafh.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com SPEEDPAY INC: Motion for Judgment in "Pincus" Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a class action lawsuit remains pending. On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the motion. As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: $39.25MM Settlement Has Preliminary Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Court has issued an order preliminarily approving the $39.25 million settlement to resolve the December 2012 Securities Litigation. On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint, which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleading representations made during the class period extending from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of compensation in the second amended complaint. The Court granted class certification on December 22, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the parties agreed to resolve the case, pending notification to class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement, the Company agreed to make a payment of $39.25 million to resolve all of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during the second quarter of 2016. On July 13, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Concurrent with the recording of the loss, the Company also recognized probable insurance recoveries of $39.25 million. STONERIDGE INC: Class Certification Bid in "Verde" Case Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., remains pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM. The United States District Court has not yet ruled on a motion for class certification. The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and others on March 26, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. The putative class consists of all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles model years 1994-2007 equipped with the subject CD. Plaintiff seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1998-2007. Plaintiff alleges this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people. In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that damages are no more than $1,000 per person. A hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was held on November 16, 2015, and the United States District Court has not yet ruled on class certification. On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's indemnification claim; that ruling was later adopted by the United States District Court. STONERIDGE INC: "Royal" Class Action Remains Pending in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. The putative class consists of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than one million vehicles. Plaintiffs seek recovery of economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in part the Company's and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.'s motions to dismiss, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs' five claims against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the United States District Court's ruling, which was denied. The Company is vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs' allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as well as class action certification. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at June 30, 2016. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Order Decertifying Class Reversed ------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's order decertifying the class in the Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation. On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (the "Garza Complaint"). The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied the plaintiff's petition for class certification. The plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. On November 13, 2014, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to add new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative. On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for summary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee class since there is no class representative; and (2) to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's motion to decertify the entire class. On December 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals. On July 12, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's order decertifying the class. Swift intends to pursue all available appellate remedies. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such disposition cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Briefing to Be Completed in August 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation, dispositive motion briefing will be completed in August 2016. On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1, and Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly- situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Sheer Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner- operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 450 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On September 23, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the district court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed, pending the outcome of arbitration. The district court further denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The district court also denied the plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the district court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the district court's September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The matter remains pending in the district court and dispositive motion briefing will be completed in August 2016. The Company also filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the district court's order that effectively denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on November 16, 2015, and the Court requested further briefing, which both parties filed June 16, 2016. The parties await a decision from the Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settles Several Robocall Suits --------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has resolved several class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Bank or the Company is a defendant in three putative class actions alleging claims under the TCPA as a result of phone calls made by the Bank. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified. In each case, the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to them. Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (for damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief). In the first quarter of 2016, the Bank entered an agreement to resolve the Abdeljalil action on a class basis. Pursuant to the agreement, a related case (Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank, which was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri), was dismissed on February 11, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Johnson et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Financial was filed on April 22, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Johnson complaint also asserts a claim under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Anand v. Synchrony Bank and Synchrony Financial was filed on June 22, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Anand complaint also asserts claims under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In addition to the Abdeljalil, Hofer, Johnson and Anand developments, the Bank has resolved eight other putative class actions that made similar claims under the TCPA on an individual basis with the class representative: -- Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014. -- Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014. -- Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and dismissed on July 8, 2015. -- Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and dismissed on August 20, 2015. -- Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which the Bank indemnified the defendant, was filed on February 27, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and dismissed on September 1, 2015. -- Mintz et al v. Synchrony Bank was filed on December 28, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and dismissed on May 11, 2016. -- Deutsche et al. v. Synchrony Bank et al. was filed on March 27, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and dismissed on June 27, 2016. -- Ciotti et al. v. Synchrony Financial et al. was filed on April 27, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and dismissed on June 2, 2016. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defending "Kincaid" Action in N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging claims under the TCPA relating to facsimiles. In Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements without consent and without required notices, and seeks up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016. UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Pay DCIC Instructors OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Valte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly v. The United States of America, Case No. 2:16-cv-00342 (S.D. Tex., August 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons presently or formerly employed by the Defendant who attended the Detection Canine Instructor Course ("DCIC") as student instructors, for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com URBAN SETTLEMENT: "Dunn" Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DUNN, the Plaintiff, v. URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC; URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICE. LLC; URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES, INC.; URBAN LENDING SOLUTIONS APPRAISALS, LLC DBA URBAN LENDING SOLUTIONS; URBAN FULFILLMENT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1- 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 628500 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages including unpaid wages, overtime pay, and meal/rest break premiums, pursuant to the Labor Code. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff accurate itemized statement in writing showing gross wages earned, total hours worked by the employee, all deductions, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly roles. Urban Settlement sells real estate information products to the mortgage industry, working with large banks to process and provide information. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Freiman, Esq. Lawrence Freiman, Esq. FREIMAN LAW 100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700, Santa Monica, CA Telephone: (310) 917 1024 Facsimile: (888) 835 8511 E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com michael@freimanlaw.com US PIZZA CO: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum Wages, Latcham Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JANA LATCHAM and CORNELIA KUEHL, Each Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. U.S. PIZZA COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00582-BSM (E.D. Ark., August 12, 2016), alleges that the Defendant's policies violate the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act because the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated servers are not compensated at a minimum of $7.50 per hour. U.S. Pizza Company, Inc., is an Arkansas for-profit corporation that owns and operates several U.S. Pizza restaurants in Pulaski County, including the U.S. Pizza restaurant located in North Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Plaintiffs were servers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center, 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com VEREIT INC: Case Management Conference Scheduled for September 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a case management conference is scheduled before the court on September 9, 2016, in the class action lawsuit related to the audit committee investigation. On October 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K (the "October 29 8-K") reporting the Audit Committee's conclusion, based on the preliminary findings of its investigation, that certain previously issued consolidated financial statements of the Company, including those included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and related financial information should no longer be relied upon. Prior to that filing, the Audit Committee previewed for the SEC the information contained in the filing. Subsequent to that filing, the SEC provided notice that it had commenced a formal investigation and issued subpoenas calling for the production of various documents. In addition, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York contacted counsel for the Audit Committee and counsel for the Company with respect to this matter, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a subpoena calling for the production of various documents. The Audit Committee and the Company are cooperating with these regulators in their investigations. As discussed below, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed following the October 29 8-K, including class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions seeking money damages and other relief under the federal securities laws and state laws in both federal and state courts in New York, Maryland and Arizona. Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors, among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP, filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in part by the court at oral argument on June 1, 2016. The Company and the OP filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint on July 29, 2016. A case management conference is scheduled before the court on September 9, 2016. VEREIT INC: Case Before Maryland Appeals Court Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiff's petition seeking further appellate review by the Maryland Court of Appeals is pending. Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease stockholders, the following of which remain pending: On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the merger agreement.In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was granted by the Baltimore Court and the parties have engaged in no subsequent activity in the Tarver Action. In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13- 006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which affirmed the trial court's order on May 3, 2016. Plaintiff has filed a petition seeking further appellate review by the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is pending. VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Cole Litigation Matter remains pending. In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Records Litigation Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation remains pending. On September 9, 2015, the Company was served with a nationwide putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp.") titled Sherri Legrand v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on November 5, 2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and alleges two putative class claims against Intellicorp, namely (i) a section 1681k(a) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp, which contained public record information in the "Government Sanctions" section of the report on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim on behalf of all individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp, which contained public record information in the "Government Sanctions" section of the report where the address or social security number of the subject of the report do not match the social security number or address contained in the government database on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared. Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on the plaintiff and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to assure that the public record information reported, which was likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and up to date, respectively. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. VERISK ANALYTICS: "DiSalvo" Action Moved to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants removed the complaint by Frank DiSalvo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 1, 2016. On February 1, 2016, the Company was served with a nationwide putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina naming Intellicorp. The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. claims violations of the FCRA and alleges a section 1681b(b)(1) claim on behalf of all individuals residing in the United States who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Intellicorp for employment purposes within the period prescribed by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p without first obtaining from the user of the report a certification that such user had complied with the obligations under Section 1681b(b)(2) as to the subject of the consumer report. The class complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681b(b)(1) by failing to obtain the required specific certification from its customers to whom Intellicorp furnished consumer reports as to each consumer report provided before providing the specific consumer report that was the subject of the certification. The complaint alleges that the violations were willful or in the alternative negligent and seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees. On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending the resolution of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339. After Spokeo was decided on May 16, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their federal court complaint and filed a virtually identical complaint in Ohio State court on May 27, 2016. Defendants removed that complaint to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 1, 2016. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Interthinx, Inc. Litigation remains pending. On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in ISO Litigation Underway --------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal from a ruling in the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation remains pending. On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including the Company and ISO. Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law. On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state common law, and seeks all available relief including injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants' motion to strike the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016 and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016. On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of the Court's January 15, 2016 dismissal. Appellants filed their brief in support of the consolidated appeal on July 20, 2016. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter. VULCAN MATERIALS: First Trial Date Set for March 2017 ----------------------------------------------------- Vulcan Materials Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in the Texas brine lawsuit and the first trial date in any of these cases has been set for March 2017. During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was the lessee to a salt lease from 1976 - 2005 in an underground salt dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine Company (Texas Brine) operated this salt mine for the account of Vulcan. Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the leased premises or Texas Brine since that time. In August 2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and numerous lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and federal court. Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a third-party defendant in August 2013 by Texas Brine. Vulcan has since been added as a direct and third-party defendant by other parties, including a direct claim by the state of Louisiana. The damages alleged in the litigation range from individual plaintiffs' claims for property damage, to the state of Louisiana's claim for response costs, to claims for physical damages to oil pipelines, to business interruption claims. In addition to the plaintiffs' claims, Vulcan has also been sued for contractual indemnity and comparative fault by both Texas Brine and Occidental Chemical Co. (Occidental). The total amount of damages claimed is in excess of $500 million. It is alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part, by Vulcan's negligent actions or failure to act. It is also alleged that Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as an operating agreement and a drilling agreement with Texas Brine; that Vulcan is strictly liable for certain property damages in its capacity as a former assignee of the salt lease; and that Vulcan violated certain covenants and conditions in the agreement under which it sold its Chemicals Division in 2005. Vulcan has made claims for contractual indemnity, comparative fault, and breach of contract against Texas Brine, as well as claims for contractual indemnity and comparative fault against Occidental. Discovery is ongoing and the first trial date in any of these cases has been set for March 2017. "At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of liability pertaining to this matter," the Company said. WASHINGTON SQUARE: "Jennings" Action Remains Pending in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emergent Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a complaint was filed against the Company's subsidiary, styled Kenneth Jennings v. Washington Square Financial, LLC d/b/a Imperial Structured Settlements ("Washington Square"), and is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff seeks, in a purported class action, to represent all individuals who sold all or a part of a structured settlement annuity to Washington Square under the Illinois Structured Settlement Protections Act (the "Illinois Act"), where the underlying annuity contract contained an anti-assignment clause, and where a court issued an order under the Illinois Act approving the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that all such transactions are void and compensatory and punitive damages. To date, the District Court has made no rulings with respect to whether the claims raised in the complaint state a cause of action. The Company has not established any provision for losses in respect of this matter. Incorporated in Florida, Emergent Capital, through its subsidiary companies, owns a portfolio of 625 life insurance policies, also referred to as life settlements, with a fair value of $473.0 million and an aggregate death benefit of approximately $3.0 billion at June 30, 2016. The Company primarily earns income on these policies from changes in their fair value and through death benefits. WESTERN UNION: Tennille and Smet Cases Pending in Colorado Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are included within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These fees and other expenses are currently estimated to be approximately $50 million. During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel's fees, as well as other expenses will be paid. On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously expressed similar views. Other states have also recently expressed concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an opinion. Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other expenses. However, given the number of jurisdictions involved and the fact that no actions have been brought, the Company is unable to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss. WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Case Awaits Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in the class action by Jason Douglas awaits final approval. On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote. WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholders' Amended Complaint Due Aug. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in the stockholder litigation must file an amended complaint by August 31, 2016. On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of us filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of our units in the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants, us, Williams, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's intention to pursue a purchase of Williams conditioned on Williams not closing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange when announcing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff must file an amended complaint by August 31, 2016. "We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time," the Company said. WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit in District of Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. The case is captioned Marcus Bagwell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv- 01350 (D. Conn., Aug. 9, 2016). World Wrestling is an American publicly traded, privately controlled entertainment company that deals primarily in professional wrestling. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brenden P. Leydon, Esq. TOOHER & WOCL & LEYDON LLC 80 Fourth St. Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 324 6164 Facsimile: (203) 324 1407 E-mail: bleydon@tooherwocl.com WRIGHT MEDICAL: 1,167 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending in MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that as of June 26, 2016, there were 1,167 product liability lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 26 cases pending in various state courts. The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant, in some cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design, manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision surgery (collectively, the CONSERVE(R) Claims). We anticipate that additional lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip replacement products may be brought." "Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2012 transferred certain actions pending in the federal court system related to metal-on-metal hip replacement products to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. "Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, we have agreed to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending lawsuits in California were consolidated for pre-trial handling on May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California State Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710. "There are other individual lawsuits related to metal-on-metal hip products pending in various state courts. As of June 26, 2016, there were 1,167 such lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 26 cases pending in various state courts. We have also entered into 896 so-called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. There are also 40 non-U.S. lawsuits presently pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding mediation in the multi-district federal court litigation and expect to begin similar mediation in the JCCP. "The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. "On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In light of the trial judge's April 5th order, we recorded an accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2.1 million within "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities," and a $2.1 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within "Other current assets." "The supervising judge in the JCCP has set a trial date of October 31, 2016, for the first bellwether trial in California. The parties are currently in an expert discovery and pre-trial procedure phase. "We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular neck product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of June 26, 2016, there were 49 pending U.S. lawsuits and 49 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. WRIGHT MEDICAL: 4 US & 5 Non-US Suits Over Modular Neck Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that, "We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of June 26, 2016, there were four pending U.S. lawsuits and five pending non- U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. "In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the MicroPort closing. This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have previously reported. There are no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this component has fractured. The case, Alan Warner et al. vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. et al., case no. BC 475958, was tried in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. "In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated." WRIGHT MEDICAL: Updates on Wright-Tornier Merger Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, provided updates on the Wright/Tornier Merger Related Litigation. Beginning on November 25, 2014, purported shareholders of WMG filed a number of class action complaints (Delaware Actions) in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware Chancery Court), many of which were later amended. The complaints and amended complaints in the Delaware Actions named as defendants WMG, Tornier, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc. (Merger Sub) and the members of the WMG board of directors. The Delaware Actions generally asserted various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly failed to disclose material information about the merger. The Delaware Actions further alleged that WMG, Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware Actions, specifically Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB, and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption In re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10400-CB (Consolidated Delaware Action). A later-filed case, Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al., C.A. No. 10829-CB, was also made part of the Consolidated Delaware Action by order dated May 22, 2015. On April 8, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a Stipulated Order dismissing the Consolidated Delaware Action as moot, with prejudice as to Plaintiffs' claims, and without prejudice as to other members of the putative class. The court retained jurisdiction to hear any mootness fee application that plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action may choose to file. In lieu of such application, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action subsequently agreed that we would pay $250,000 directly to Plaintiffs' counsel in full satisfaction of Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of a fee or its reasonableness. We have been advised that the costs associated with the Consolidated Delaware Action will be covered by relevant insurance. On November 26, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, and the members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On December 2, 2014, a separate class action complaint was filed in the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other things, that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion of the Wright/Tornier merger. Y.Y.K. ENTERPRISES: "Fuselier" Suit Moved to S.D. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- Donnell Fuselier and Max Mowery, individually, on behalf of himself, and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Y.Y.K. Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation; Steve Johnston, individual; Paul Ralph, individual; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00022133-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02002-MMA-JLB to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael M. Anello. Y.Y.K. Enterprises was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes providing special trade contracting services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Craig Clark, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239 1321 Facsimile: (888) 273 4554 E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Harvey C Berger, Esq. POPE, BERGER, WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595 1366 Facsimile: (619) 236 9677 E-mail: berger@popeberger.com YORK BAGELS: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Marco Rojas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. York Bagels Inc. d/b/a Bagels & Co., Haim Levi, Yuval Aroety, Vlad Djouraev, and Yuri Iskhakov, Case No. 1:16-cv-06429 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Bagels & Co. restaurant in New York. Marco Rojas is a pro se plaintiff. ********* 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 * * *