/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160923.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 191 Headlines 9TH AVE LIME: Faces "Sontay" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Set for Sept. 29 in "Augustus" ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in "Bucio" Case ALERE INC: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice AMERICAN REALTY: SEC Says Execs Misled Investors APPLE INC: Faces "Frank" Suit Over Upgrade Program AVADHUT LLC: Faces Texas Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Case Pending BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Case Remains Pending BCFS HEALTH: Faces "Douglas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA BEST BUY: IBEW Has Until Oct. 14 to Petition Supreme Court BIG LOTS: Class Suit in Early Stages of Discovery BOCA FRESH: Faces "Henriquez" Suit Over FLSA Violation BROADCOM LIMITED: Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint Underway BROADCOM LIMITED: Filed Answering Brief in Class Action Appeal BROADCOM LIMITED: Nov. 17 Hearing on Class Action Settlement BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Over Ruckus Acquisition Dismissed CAMERON INT'L: Faces "Gardea" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA CEPHALON: 3rd Cir. Decertified Class of Provigil Wholesalers CHICAGO AUTO: Faces "Vargas" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law CHICO'S FAS: Settlement in Class Action Has Preliminary Approval CHICO'S FAS: "Cunningham" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman CHICO'S FAS: "Rodenms" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman CHICO'S FAS: Reviewing "Calleros" Class Action Allegations CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court COMENITY: Makes Illegal Debt-Collection Robocalls, Suit Claims CONN'S INC: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Action COOPER COMPANIES: Actions by Contact Lens Consumers in Discovery DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Fully Briefed DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Store Manager Suit DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Distribution Center Employee Case DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Store Manager's Case DOLLAR TREE: Former Assistant Store Managers' Suit Stayed DOLLAR TREE: Class Action in Florida State Court Still Pending DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suit by Former Hourly Sales Associate DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Dismissed FLSA Suit by Ex-Store Manager DOLLAR TREE: Merits Discovery Proceeds in Female Managers' Case DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Begins in Family Dollar Employee's Case DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee Appeals Case Dismissal DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Granted Motion for Summary Judgment EAST RAMAPO SCHOOL: 2nd Cir. Dismissed Class Action ENCORE BRANDS: "Gonzalez-Fajardo" Suit Alleges Labor Code Breach ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Garzon Residents Pending ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Codensa Residents Pending ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by AmSurg EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALS: "Meraz" Suit to Recoup OT Pay FEI COMPANY: Hialeah Retirement System Sues Over Sale to Thermo FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Class Suit Still Pending FOXX TAILS: Dancers/Entertainers' Suit Assert Violation of FLSA GEORGE WASHINGTON: Failed to Properly Track Cadavers, Suit Claims GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "London" Suit Alleges Zofran(R)-Linked Death GRANITE CITY: Faces "Koenig" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Act GREE ELECTRIC: Four Insurance Companies File Class Action H&R BLOCK: Compliance Fee Litigation Still Pending H&R BLOCK: 8th Cir. Appeal in "Perras" Case Underway HARVEST NATURAL: Wins Dismissal of "Phillips" Case HEWLETT PACKARD: Claims of 2 Individuals Remain Pending HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Suit Over "Smart Install" Software HOMEAWAY: Faces Housing Discrimination Class Action HP INC: Case Management Conference in "Forsyth" Set for Nov. 16 HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Case Appeal INFUSION BRANDS: "Flint" Class Action Not Yet Served INSULET CORPORATION: ATRS et al. Balk at Bid to Dismiss Case INTEGRITY REALTY: Faces "Flaesgarten" Suit in Ohio District Court ITT EDUCATIONAL: Ex-Employee Files Action Over Sexual Harassment J. C. PENNEY: Marcus Consolidated Class Action Remains Pending J. C. PENNEY: $4.5MM Accord in ERISA Action Awaits Court OK J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends "Tschudy" Class Action J. C. PENNEY: Settlement in Pricing Class Action Still Pending JOY GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Komatsu JUST SALAD: Faces "Camara" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval KC JEWELRY: Inflates Weight of Small Diamonds, Suit Says LG CORP: Faces "A. Frost" No-Poaching Class Action LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Appeal of Case Dismissal Pending LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends Gathmann-Landini Action MAC ALTAMONTE: "Neusch" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Submission MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Ontario Action MEDTRONIC PLC: Has Deals to Settle 4,300 INFUSE Claims MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 6,200 Pelvic Mesh Claims MEDTRONIC PLC: W.Va. Pipe Trades and Phil Pace Appeal Dismissal MEDTRONIC PLC: Minnesota Supreme Court Decision Expected in 2017 MENASHE RESTAURANT: Faces "Gomez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law MENTOR GRAPHICS: Class Not Certified in "Haroutunian" Case MICHIGAN: Schools Fail to Provide Basic Literacy Tools, Suit Says MONSTER WORLDWIDE: "Litwin" Suit Files Suit Over Randstad Merger MORELIA MEXICAN: Faces "Brens" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Next Status Conference Set for October 28 NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 25 NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Savings Plan Beneficiaries File Suit in Calif. NYC BUILDING: Faces "Quiroz" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Beeney" Case in California Remains Stayed PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case in California Remains Stayed PAPA FRESH: "Mayoral-Climico" Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation Pending PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Action PERFORMANCE FOOD: Nov. 2016 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Settlement PERFORMANCE FOOD: Motion to Dismiss "Perez" Case Pending PERFORMANCE FOOD: Paid $3.75MM Settlement Fund in "Contreras" PERFORMANCE FOOD: Settled Vengris's Individual Claim PURE STORAGE: Faces "Ramsay" Class Action in California RELIABLE CLEAN-UP: Faces "Lopez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA RESTORATION HARDWARE: Court Has Not Issued Final Order on Judgment SAHARA BEACH: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: S7 Phones Not Water-Resistant, Suit Claims SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Broiler Chicken Prices SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway SHIRE PLC: Final Decision in ELAPRASE Suit Expected in 18 Months SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,094 Employees Join Collective Action SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Defends Lawsuit by EOCC SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against Zale Litigation SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Dube" Shareholder Action in New York SILICON GRAPHICS: Class Action Filed Over HPE Acquisition SIMONIZ USA: Faces "Burgos" Suit Under FLSA, Conn. Min. Wage Act SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Lifetime Subscriptions SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: "Williams" Sues Directors Over Pay Scheme SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: "de Leon" Suit Invokes FLSA, Fla. Wage Act TAILORED BRANDS: Defending Against "Makhlouf" Action TAILORED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss "Lucas" Action Pending TILLY'S INC: Appeal in "Christiansen" Class Action Underway TILLY'S INC: Nov. 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Rebolledo" Case TILLY'S INC: Settlement Reached in "Whitten" Class Action TILLY'S INC: Hearing Date on Demurrer Set for October 19 TRS RECOVERY: Faces "Grind" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Lawyer Wants Case Trial Delayed TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Say Opt-Outs Can't Testify VALSPAR CORPORATION: "Mitsopoulos" Lawsuit Dismissed VERIFONE SYSTEMS: ISA Submits Position Paper on Class Suit VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Underway VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Denied Motion to Certify Lawsuit VOYA FINANCIAL: Nestle 401(k) Savings Planholders File Lawsuit WAL-MART STORES: Paid $242MM Judgment in Wage-And-Hour Action WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Equal Value Claims Still Pending WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Challenged WILLIS LTD: Faces Suit by Stanford Claimants ZAIS FINANCIAL: Faces Merger Class Action in Maryland Court Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Dropped as Defendant in "Floyd" ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Man Drops Asbestos Claims vs. Crown Cork ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Man Ordered to Prosecute Suit vs. Pharmacia ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Couple Drops Claims vs. Air & Liquid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florida Tightens Reins Proving Causation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Probe Puts Libby Program On Hold ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Cos. Not Liable for Take Home Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair Woman Blames Cos. for Husband's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Ct. Ruling Did Not Bring Flood of Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jury Reaches Defense Verdicts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Air Force Mechanic's Widow Sues Dozens ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Died of Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landlord Accused of Illegal Asbestos Work ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flint Law Adds Attys to Expand Asbestos Practice ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staffordshire Worker Died from Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Ct. Flips $8MM Asbestos Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Hotelier Dies From Lung Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects $8-Mil. Verdict in Asbestos Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Worker Awarded Nearly $13MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Asbestos Fibers Can Move in Soil ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Revives Dust Claims vs. CBS ********* 9TH AVE LIME: Faces "Sontay" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HERRERA SONTAY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 9TH AVE LIME JUNGLE, INC. (d/b/a LIMON JUNGLE), BESIM KUKAJ, and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07076 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Limon Jungle is a Mexican restaurant owned by Besim Kukaj. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY Phone: (212) 317-1200 ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Set for Sept. 29 in "Augustus" ------------------------------------------------------------ ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that oral argument has been scheduled for September 29, 2016, in the appeal in the consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall, and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case") The Augustus case is a certified class action involving alleged violations of certain California state laws relating to rest breaks. The case centers on whether requiring security guards to remain on call during rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million (the "common fund"). Subsequently, the Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of the common fund. The Company said, "We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the "Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and the attorneys' fees award. Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the Appeals Court's decision to reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiffs and vacate the damages award." "On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and certified the opinion for publication. The Appeals Court opinion held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid under California law. The Appeals Court explained that "although on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to work is not the same as performing work. . . . Section 226.7 proscribes only work on a rest break." The plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court on March 4, 2015, and on April 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition. "Oral argument has been scheduled for September 29, 2016. We believe that the Appeals Court correctly ruled in our favor, and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the California Supreme Court," the Company said. ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in "Bucio" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that oral argument has not been scheduled in the class action appeal in the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case"). The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class certification issues. "We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled," the Company said. ALERE INC: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------ Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH is currently involved in civil litigation brought by a competitor in the United States with respect to the advertising of one of SPD's products in the United States. During 2015, SPD appealed the district court's injunction with respect to sales and advertising of such product, which was based on a finding that SPD violated certain laws with respect to the advertising of such product. The appellate court has issued a stay of the injunction, pending the outcome of the appeal. In addition, a class action lawsuit has been initiated against SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, and Procter & Gamble in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of certain laws in connection with the sales and advertising of one of SPD's products which claims are based on similar grounds as those at issue in the litigation described above in this paragraph. On August 19, 2016, the class action lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs may appeal the decision prior to September 19, 2016. The Company said, "There may be additional lawsuits against SPD or us relating to this matter in the future. The ultimate resolution of these matters is not known at this time, nor is the potential impact they or future litigation may have on SPD or us, including whether any such resolution or any damages imposed by a court would have a material adverse impact on SPD and, ultimately, by virtue of our 50% interest in SPD, on our financial position or results of operations." AMERICAN REALTY: SEC Says Execs Misled Investors ------------------------------------------------ Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission claims two former executives misled investors by plugging in fake numbers to overstate the performance of a real-estate investment trust. The charges come almost two years after American Realty Capital Properties admitted errors on its registration statements prepared in connection with its sale of 138 million shares in May 2014, at $12 per share. Founded in 2010, the trust had 3,809 properties as of March 31, 2014, consisting of 101.8 million square feet of leasable space. The SEC says then-chief financial officer Brian S. Block and then- chief accounting officer Lisa P. McAlister conspired to manipulate the calculation of the trust's adjusted funds from operations, or AFFO, figure, which is a measure of the trust's net income and "its most important financial metric." "With McAlister in his office, Block plugged in fake numbers that concealed the first quarter overstatement of AFFO and made it appear that the company had met second-quarter estimates when, in fact, it had fallen short," the SEC said in a statement. Through Block and McAlister's fraud, the trust overstated its first quarter AFFO by $12 million out of a total of $147 million, according to an SEC lawsuit filed on September 8, in Southern New York Federal Court. Both executives actively lied about the use of plugged numbers when queried about the change in AFFO numbers by the firm's auditor and in-house counsel, the complaint states. Five months after the May 2014 offering brought in net proceeds of $1.59 billion, the trust announced on Oct. 29 that the forms it previously filed with the SEC should not be relied upon. Shares fell 36 percent in intraday trading to as low as $7.85 on Oct. 29, 2014. In the following two years, the trust's share price never reached its pre-revelation price. Shares traded at $10.02 on September 12. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Block and McAlister. American Realty also faces a shareholder class action based on the same fraud allegations. That complaint was filed in December 2014. The case is captioned, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, against BRIAN S. BLOCK and LISA PAVELKA MCALISTER, Defendants., 16 Civ. 7003 (S.D.N.Y) APPLE INC: Faces "Frank" Suit Over Upgrade Program -------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that days before Apple's iPhone 7 even hits stores, one of the company's customers sued the smartphone manufacturing giant, saying it broke faith with its most loyal customers in its quest for a greater market share. Emil Frank, a Brooklyn resident who bought the iPhone Upgrade Program, filed a class action in San Jose, Calif. federal court on September 12, claiming that Apple is not living up to the promises it made customers who purchased the program. The program, unveiled in 2015, promised Apple members the opportunity to upgrade to annual new versions of the iPhone as long as certain conditions were met -- in this case 12 payments within 6 months, according to the complaint. "The iPhone Upgrade Program offered Apple's biggest fans and most loyal customers a way to make simple monthly payments in exchange for the newest iPhones, with a promise that 'every year' the customer would be able to trade in last year's iPhone and receive the newest version of the phone," Frank says in the complaint. However, when Apple made their latest smartphone, the iPhone 7, available on Sept. 9, the upgrade programs customers were prevented from selecting the product of their choice and were instead directed to various stores that had what Frank describes as an artificially low inventory. "This is not just a problem created by the limited supply of the newly released iPhones," Frank says. "Rather, Apple intentionally limited the inventory available to iPhone Upgrade Program customers (who are already contractually locked into making monthly payments for their old devices) to capture sales from new customers who weren't already part of the program." Some of the upgrade program customers have been told to wait until November, while new customers purchasing their phones through Verizon or AT&T were able to purchase new phones long after the upgrade customers were told inventory was low, Frank says in the complaint. Frank woke up at 2:45 a.m. on September 9, in eager anticipation of procuring the iPhone 7, the complaint says. However, after he was diverted to the procurement process specific to upgrade program customers, it became apparent that no phones were available in New York City. Expanding his search to Albany and Buffalo, and then eventually to stores as far away as North Carolina, Frank says he was unable to locate the device of his choice. Apple is violating the promise of its program by making its customers pay for outdated phones while they wait for inventory to catch up, Franks says. This will create even further delays next year, as customers have to make 12 payments on one phone before qualifying for the upgrade, according to the lawsuit. "For these customers, having quick access to the latest technology is the very reason they signed up for the program in the first place," Frank says. Frank says he and other customers of the upgrade program are victims of a breach of contract and that the implementation of the iPhone Upgrade Program was deceptive. He seeks punitive and compensatory damages. An email sent to Apple requesting comment was not returned as of press time. AVADHUT LLC: Faces Texas Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ZARINA GHANY INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. AVADHUT, LLC D/B/A BROW SHAPE, Case 6:16-cv-01151 (E.D. Tex., September 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff's job at Brow Shape was as an eyebrow shaper. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone: 903-596-7100 Fax: 469-533-1618 BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation is pending. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Case Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the case, Christine N. Hartpence individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., remains pending. Christine Hartpence filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. ("Barnes & Noble") in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 26, 2015 (Case No.: 160503426), alleging that she is entitled to unpaid compensation for overtime under Pennsylvania law and seeking to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the same position (CafÇ Manager). On July 14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, by which she seeks to act as a class representative for similarly situated CafÇ Managers throughout the United States. On July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.: 16-4034), where it is currently pending. BCFS HEALTH: Faces "Douglas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Preston Scott Douglas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BCFS Health and Human Services d/b/a Baptist Child & Family Services, Baptist Care Facilities for Persons with Mental Disabilities, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Care Facilities, and Breckenridge Village of Tyler d/b/a BVT, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01010 (E.D. Tex., September 9, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide supervised environments for persons with intellectual disabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 Web site: http://www.overtimelawyer.com - and - Gregory S. Porter, Esq. PORTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 3311 Woods Blvd. Tyler, TX 75707 Phone: (903) 561-5144 Fax: (903) 705-6253 E-mail: greg@gregporterlaw.com BEST BUY: IBEW Has Until Oct. 14 to Petition Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reported that Best Buy shareholders accusing the retailer's executives of securities law violations will get extra time to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Eighth Circuit's reversal of a Minnesota federal judge's certification of a class, according to a letter docketed Sept. 1, 2016. Plaintiffs including the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund now have an Oct. 14 deadline for petitioning the justices in Washington, D.C., for review of the circuit's reversal. Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that, "In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public." "Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. "We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice. "In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. "On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. "By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court misapplied the law and reversed the class certification order. "IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was denied on June 1, 2016. We await a decision by IBEW as to whether it will appeal. We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter." BIG LOTS: Class Suit in Early Stages of Discovery ------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery. The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning our financial performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses." "The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23, 2012. "On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward. The case is in the early stages of discovery." BOCA FRESH: Faces "Henriquez" Suit Over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ JACOBO HENRIQUEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. BOCA FRESH PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a RED APPLE FARMERS MARKET, and ABE FRIEDMAN, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81568-DMM (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Boca Fresh Produce Corporation is a fresh fruits and vegetable company located in Boca Raton, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM BROADCOM LIMITED: Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the Federal Consolidated Complaint remains pending. Since the announcement of the Broadcom Transaction, 11 putative class action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged BRCM shareholders. Two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15, 2015, or the Federal Actions. On September 2, 2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter filed an amended complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal securities laws. One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June 2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015- 00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30- 2015-00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30- 2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the State Actions). The Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches. Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 14-a9. On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder Cases, JCCP 4834. On September 18, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California consolidated the Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979. On September 25, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of the Federal Actions. On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed additional proxy materials with the SEC. On November 10, 2015, BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Transaction. On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Federal Actions. On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the Federal Consolidated Compliant, which names as defendants, among other parties, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9. On February 1, 2016, we completed the acquisition of BRCM. On February 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Consolidated Complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BROADCOM LIMITED: Filed Answering Brief in Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Defendants-Appellees have filed their answering brief in an appeal in the lawsuit relating to the acquisition of Emulex. On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints alleged, among other things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, either to enjoin the transaction or to rescind it following its completion, as well as damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743- VCL. On May 5, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Emulex. On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice. On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the court granted with prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2016. The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief and on August 17, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering brief. BROADCOM LIMITED: Nov. 17 Hearing on Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a hearing on a class action settlement is scheduled for November 17, 2016. In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880- VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post- closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12, 2014. On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9, as filed with the SEC, contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 3, 2015, the court granted motions to dismiss filed by AT Wireless, the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities. On August 17, 2016, the five remaining PLX director-defendants and Deutsche Bank Securities entered into a stipulation of partial settlement to resolve claims against all of the former PLX directors and Deutsche Bank Securities asserted in the Delaware class action. The partial settlement also provides for a release of all potential claims against AT Wireless, Pluto Merger Sub, Avago and PLX. Defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. is not a party to the settlement. This partial settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the putative class of PLX shareholders. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for November 17, 2016. The Delaware class litigation is on-going. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Over Ruckus Acquisition Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Small class action lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on August 29, 2016. Subsequent to the announcement that Brocade had entered into an agreement to acquire Ruckus on April 3, 2016, three putative stockholder class action complaints relating to the acquisition were filed on behalf of purported Ruckus stockholders in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, a fourth putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and a fifth putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints in the three California state court actions are captioned: Maguire v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed April 12, 2016 and amended on May 10, 2016; referred to as the "Maguire action"); Jaljouli v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al., (filed April 19, 2016; referred to as the "Jaljouli action"); and Small v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed May 12, 2016; referred to as the "Small action"). The complaint in the Delaware federal court action is captioned Borrego v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed May 11, 2016; referred to as the "Borrego action"). The complaint in the California federal court action is captioned Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2016; referred to as the "Hussey action"). The complaints in the Maguire, Jaljouli and Small actions contain similar allegations and name Ruckus and members of the Ruckus board of directors as defendants; the Maguire and Jaljouli actions also name Brocade and a Brocade subsidiary as defendants. In general, the complaints allege that the members of the Ruckus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Ruckus stockholders by purportedly doing one or more of the following: agreeing to unfair and inadequate transaction consideration for the Ruckus shares; accepting unreasonable deal protection measures in the merger agreement that would dissuade other potential bidders from making competing offers; failing to properly value Ruckus and take steps to maximize the sale value of Ruckus; engaging in self-dealing; and providing allegedly false, misleading, and/or incomplete disclosures regarding the transaction, the negotiations leading up to it, and the opinion of Ruckus' financial advisor. The complaints in the Maguire and Jaljouli actions also allege that one or more of Ruckus, Brocade, and the Brocade subsidiary aided and abetted the members of the Ruckus board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to Ruckus stockholders. The complaint in the Borrego action alleges that Ruckus and members of the Ruckus board of directors violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or alleged omissions in the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed by Ruckus with the SEC on April 29, 2016. The complaint in the Hussey action, which names Ruckus, members of the Ruckus board of directors, Ruckus' chief financial officer, Brocade, and a Brocade subsidiary as defendants, contains a similar Section 14(e) claim and also alleges that the defendants violated Section14(d)(7) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder based on the allegedly differential consideration received by members of the Ruckus board of directors and Ruckus' chief financial officer in connection with the acquisition. The plaintiffs in one or more of these five actions have requested relief including, among other things, certification as a class, rescission and invalidation of the merger agreement or related agreements, injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, an award of damages and an accounting, an award of the costs and disbursements of the action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and other equitable relief that the court may deem just and proper. The Small action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on August 29, 2016. CAMERON INT'L: Faces "Gardea" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY GARDEA, PLAINTIFF, individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:16-cv-00904 (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cameron International Corporation provides flow equipment products, systems, and services worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CEPHALON: 3rd Cir. Decertified Class of Provigil Wholesalers ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decertified a class of wholesalers who say the drugmaker Cephalon paid generic competitors to stay out of the market for its wakefulness drug Provigil. Consumers and retailers alike have brought lawsuits for years over these so-called reverse settlements. To maintain lucrative exclusivity, brand-name pharmaceutical companies pay generic manufacturers to silence patent suits. Cephalon, which Teva Pharmaceuticals bought in 2011, agreed last month to a $125 million settlement with 48 states over its anticompetitive Provigil dealings. A 2015 settlement with a class of direct purchasers of Provigil meanwhile cost the company $512 million. Before its Teva merger, the Israeli pharmaceutical giant had been one four drugmakers Cephalon paid $300 million to drop their patent suits against Provigil. At the time, Cephalon determined that generic modafinil would cost about 90 percent less than Provigil. Twenty-two wholesalers challenging the deal won class certification last year in Philadelphia, but the Third Circuit overturned that ruling 2-1 on September 13. "The District Court abused its discretion in analyzing the two most important numerosity factors when it considered the late stage of the litigation as relevant to the judicial economy factor and failed to properly consider the ability and motivation of the plaintiffs to proceed as joined, as opposed to individual, parties," U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for the majority. Three of the named wholesalers each have estimated claims of over $1 billion, even before any punitive damages award, and only six plaintiffs have claims under $1 million, according to the 64-page opinion. "While it may be uneconomical for these claims to be pursued in individual litigation, there has been no showing that it would be uneconomical for these six class members to be individually joined as parties in a traditional lawsuit," Smith wrote. Affirming though that the wholesalers have antitrust standing, the court noted that the Cephalon's reverse-payment settlement agreements prevented a competitive market from forming. Each of the four generic manufacturers can be held jointly liable for damages, the ruling says. "This is not the sum of four separate individual harms emanating from each agreement; instead, it is a harm that all four agreements work jointly to produce, even if there was no conspiracy between the generic manufacturers," Smith wrote. "Defendants' attempt to dictate plaintiffs' theory of liability based on the doctrine of antitrust standing should fail." Writing in dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell blasted the majority for "erecting roadblocks that do not exist." Rendell said there were "obvious practical reasons" that would stand in the way of the wholesalers pursuing their claims via joinder instead of as a class. "I am struck by the inescapable fact that this case has proceeded as a class action for years and nothing about it cries out for anything but class treatment," Rendell said. "One has only to read the majority's analysis of the real issues before the court to conclude that it is unimaginable that this case should be torn apart at this late date and sent to the far corners of the United States to start over again as separate actions before several judges, each deciding anew the identical issues facing each plaintiff's claims. It should not be remanded at this late date." The protracted litigation, initiated in 2006, bears heightened significance since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, which held that reverse settlements could be illegal in some cases but did not specify what those situations are. The case is captioned, IN RE: MODAFINIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 15-3475 (3rd Cir.). A copy of the decision is available at https://is.gd/LU8qs7 from Leagle.com. CHICAGO AUTO: Faces "Vargas" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Sergio Vargas individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chicago Auto Pros, Inc. and Greg Natonson, individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-08747 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendants operate Chicago Auto at 2075 Johns Ct., Glenview, Illinois 60025. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 312-878-1302 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com CHICO'S FAS: Settlement in Class Action Has Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the settlement in the "Ackerman" class action lawsuit has been granted preliminary approval. In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016. If finally approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Ackerman Ludie, Esq., is represented by Law Offices of Peter M. Hart Chico's Fas, Inc., is represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP CHICO'S FAS: "Cunningham" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman -------------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was named in March 2016 as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Soma Intimates in California. The Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as the Ackerman class action. The court has stayed the Cunningham case pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement in light of the fact that Ackerman was first filed and likely covers all of the claims that are alleged in Cunningham. As a result, at this time, the Company does not expect that the Cunningham case will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CHICO'S FAS: "Rodenms" Class Action Stayed Pending Ackerman ----------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was named in June 2016as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Chico's stores in California. The Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as the Ackerman class action lawsuit. The court has stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement for the same reasons described in the Cunningham case. As a result, at this time, the Company does not expect that the Rodems case will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CHICO'S FAS: Reviewing "Calleros" Class Action Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed on July 28, 2016, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. The Company is reviewing the factual allegations in the Complaint and is not yet able to ascertain the merit or the value of the claims asserted. On initial review, the Company believes that the matter is not appropriate for class treatment; however, it is not possible to predict whether it will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is in the very early stage and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, a Ciena subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of directors. On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of Cyan's board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not named as defendants. On July 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition, taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The third amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v) costs including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On August 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. CIENA CORPORATION: Filed Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the defendants have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, to which the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition. As a result of Ciena's acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan's initial public offering. On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-538355. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, to which the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Information on the case is available at: http://www.cyansecuritieslitigation.com/ Attorneys for Petitioners Cyan, Inc., et al.: BORIS FELDMAN, Esq. IGNACIO E. SALCEDA, Esq. GIDEON A. SCHOR, Esq. AARON J. BENJAMIN, Esq. ELI B. RICHLIN, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com isalceda@wsgr.com gschor@wsgr.com abenjamin@wsgr.com erichlin@wsgr.com COMENITY: Makes Illegal Debt-Collection Robocalls, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Comenity makes illegal debt- collection robocalls to cellphones, consumers claim in a federal class action in Waco, Texas. CONN'S INC: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------- Conn's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the parties in the Securities Class Action Litigation have negotiated a scheduling order, which has not yet been entered by the Court, and discovery is proceeding. The Company said, "We and one of our current and one of our former executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The Consolidated Securities Action started as three separate purported securities class action lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014, which were combined into the Consolidated Securities Action on June 3, 2014. "The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. "On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling, and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 21, 2015. "The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion over the course of two days, on March 25 and 29, 2016. "On May 6, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion requesting the Court's decision be certified for interlocutory appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Court denied on June 13, 2016. "On June 24, 2016, the defendant's filed their answer to the Consolidated Securities Action, denying liability and raising numerous affirmative defenses to the claims asserted against them. "The parties have negotiated a scheduling order, which has not yet been entered by the Court, and discovery is proceeding. "The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims." COOPER COMPANIES: Actions by Contact Lens Consumers in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the class action complaints by contact lens consumers are in discovery. Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CooperVision and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaints in December 2015. In June 2016, the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act was granted, but the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and other state laws was denied. The actions currently are in discovery. CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the actions vigorously. "At this time, we do not believe a loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable nor is any range of potential loss reasonably estimable," the Company said. DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Fully Briefed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit is fully briefed. On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory damages was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv- 03644). The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is fully briefed and a ruling is expected in 2016. The defendants believe the claims asserted are without merit and the risk of material loss is remote. DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Store Manager Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are awaiting court approval of the settlement in the case. In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. In May 2014, the same assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a California state court for essentially the same conduct alleged in the federal court PAGA case. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the two cases and the proposed settlement amount has been accrued. The two courts must approve the terms of the settlement for it to be binding and final. DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Distribution Center Employee Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a distribution center employee filed in April 2015 a class action in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay. Recently, the employee filed an amended complaint in which he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution center employees for alleged improper calculation of overtime compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court. DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Store Manager's Case ------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former store manager filed in April 2015 a class action in California state court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods, and alleging PAGA claims on behalf of all store employees, including claims for failure to provide accurate wage statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. DOLLAR TREE: Former Assistant Store Managers' Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was served in November 2015 in a PAGA representative action under California law in California state court on behalf of former assistant store managers alleging defective wage statements. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of previously filed lawsuits alleging defective wage statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. DOLLAR TREE: Class Action in Florida State Court Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company was served in April 2016 with a putative class action in Florida state court brought by a former store employee asserting the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it handled background checks. Specifically, the former employee alleged the Company used disclosure forms that did not meet the statute's requirements and failed to provide notices accompanied by background reports prior to taking adverse actions against prospective and existing employees based on information in the background reports. The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suit by Former Hourly Sales Associate -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former hourly sales associate filed in July 2016 in federal court in Arkansas a putative nationwide collective action alleging the Company forced sales associates and assistant store managers to work off the clock while clocked out for meal breaks and, as a result, underpaid regular and overtime pay. DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Dismissed FLSA Suit by Ex-Store Manager -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed in 2011 a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. The court approved settlement of the lawsuit which it has now dismissed. The settlement amount has been paid. DOLLAR TREE: Merits Discovery Proceeds in Female Managers' Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that case by Family Dollar's female store managers has been continued for merits discovery. In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory practices with respect to the pay of Family Dollar's female store managers. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, monetary and punitive remedies, interest, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. In June 2016, the United States District Court in North Carolina ordered that the case be continued for merits discovery. The court also certified the case as a class action of approximately 30,000 current and former female store managers employed as far back as July 2002. The court stated that it could modify its order or even decertify the action in the future as the case develops. The Company believes the class action cannot be certified under the principles of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and prevailing case law. If the case remains certified, the Company believes the class can only cover Family Dollar store managers beginning in late 2006 under any circumstance. Although the Company believes that insurance is available for this matter, potential losses may materially exceed policy coverage if plaintiffs substantially prevail. The Company disagrees with plaintiffs' claims, does not believe the class should remain certified, and will vigorously defend itself in this matter. DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Begins in Family Dollar Employee's Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former Family Dollar employee brought in 2014 a putative class action and asserted claims under PAGA alleging the Company failed to provide suitable seating to its California store employees. The case had been stayed pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court on whether a drug store retailer has an obligation to provide suitable seating to drug store cashiers. The California Supreme Court has ruled, the stay has been lifted and the parties are beginning discovery. DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee Appeals Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that former Family Dollar employees filed in 2015 a nationwide class action in federal court in Connecticut alleging the Company had violated ERISA by overcharging employees who purchased supplemental life insurance through a Company sponsored plan. In March, 2016, the district court dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. DOLLAR TREE: Va. Court Granted Motion for Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a former Family Dollar employee filed in 2014 a nationwide class action in federal court in Virginia alleging the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to comply with its requirements to give an individual proper notice and a reasonable time to challenge the results of a background check before taking action to deny the person employment (or terminate existing employment). The plaintiffs were seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation. The district court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in July 2016 without any liability to the Company. Plaintiffs did not appeal and this case is now resolved. EAST RAMAPO SCHOOL: 2nd Cir. Dismissed Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Second Circuit dismissed a class action accusing the East Ramapo School District of unconstitutionally funneling public money into private Orthodox Jewish institutions, holding the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. By a 2-1 vote, the circuit panel dismissed claims that members the East Ramapo school board sympathetic to the interests of the Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish community had violated the First Amendment by collectively promoting the Hasidic Jewish faith in the public school setting. The plaintiff class consisted of parents living in the district and children attending its schools. Arguing that the student-plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their Establishment Clause claims because "they are only indirectly affected by the conduct alleged to violate the Establishment Clause," the panel majority, consisting of U.S. Circuit Judges Peter Hall and Raymond Lohier reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims against the school district. The majority said the class action plaintiffs "lack standing to assert their Establishment Clause claims because they are only indirectly affected by the conduct alleged to violate the Establishment Clause." The class claimed the school board channeled money out of the public school system and into yeshivas and other religious organizations for the benefit of the Hasidic children's religious education. The plaintiffs claimed the board played fast and loose with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act settlement process by offering preferential real estate deals to Hasidic institutions and by buying religious books -- including titles "I Keep Kosher" and "Let's Go to Shul!" -- with public money and distributing the books to Hasidic institutions. The class also argued school board members are not entitled to qualified immunity. The East Ramapo district, located about 45 minutes northwest of New York City, has 33,000 students, but only 9,000 of them attend its schools, according to the complaint. The other 24,000 attend private school, nearly all of them in yeshivas, or Orthodox Jewish schools. Several Hasidic villages and hamlets are within the district's borders. The lawsuit cited a 1991 fair housing lawsuit that referenced displacement of the black and Latino communities in the Ramapo district by an "exclusive white Hasidic enclave." U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss, sitting by designation, wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing the Establishment Clause does not require "direct exposure" to the unconstitutional establishment of religion and that the class does have adequate standing at the pleadings stage. The plaintiffs are represented by Laura Barbieri from Advocates for Justice in New York City. Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Courthouse News. ENCORE BRANDS: "Gonzalez-Fajardo" Suit Alleges Labor Code Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL GONZALEZ-FAJARDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ENCORE BRANDS APPAREL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; NORTHRIDGE MILLS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC6 3 318G (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, September 8, 2016), alleges failure to pay wages; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage Statement Provisions; violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and Recovery of Civil Penalties for Violation of Labor Code. NORTHRIDGE MILLS, INC., a California corporation, operates a garment contract manufacturing business in California. ENCORE BRANDS APPAREL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, owns NORTHRIDGE, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Brands Apparel Group, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, LPLC 23016 Lake Forest Drive, Suite A, #387 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: (949) 208-3400 Fax: (949)713-0432 E-mail: igaray@garavlaw.com ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Garzon Residents Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Enersis Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit has been filed by residents of the Colombian Municipality of Garzon, alleging that the construction of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project has caused the plaintiffs' income from handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease by an average of 30%. The lawsuit claims the decrease was not considered when the project's social-economic impact report was drafted. Emgesa has denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the social-economic impact report complied with all methodological criteria, including giving all interested parties the opportunity to be registered in the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not residents and therefore, compensation is allowed only for those whose revenues are, in their majority, coming from of their activity in the direct area of influence of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project and (iii) compensation must not go beyond the "first link" of the production chain and must be based on the status of the income indicators of each affected person. A proceeding was filed in parallel by 38 inhabitants of the Municipality of Garzon, who are claiming compensation for being affected by the El Quimbo hydroelectric project since they were not included in the social-economic impact report. A mandatory settlement hearing was unsuccessful. The court ordered a test, which is currently in the preliminary phase. In the parallel proceeding, an exception previous of pending lawsuit was filed, based on the existence of the principal proceeding. The proposed exception is pending ruling. The amount involved in this proceeding is estimated to be approximately CPs 93 billion (approximately ThCh$20,925,000). ENERSIS AMERICAS: Class Action by Codensa Residents Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Enersis Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action was filed in Colombia against Codensa in which plaintiffs seek reimbursement for excess charges for not applying the tariff benefit that according to them would have applied to them as users of the Voltage One Level and owners of the infrastructure, as established by Resolution No. 082 of 2002, amended by Resolution No. 097 of 2008. Regarding the proceeding status, Codensa filed a plea against the lawsuit rejecting it entirely. A conciliation hearing was effected between the parties, without success. The writ of proof is pending. The estimated amount is approximately CPs 337,626,840,000 (approximately ThCh$75,966,039). ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by AmSurg ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN LEMAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., WILLIAM A. SANGER, MICHAEL L. SMITH, RONALD A. WILLIAMS, CAROL J. BURT, LEONARD M. RIGGS, JR., RICHARD J. SCHNALL, MARK V. MACTAS, JAMES D. SHELTON, AMSURG CORP., and NEW AMETHYST CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02265-CBS (D. Col., September 8, 2016), was filed over a Proposed acquisition of Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. by AmSurg Corp. Envision is a family of healthcare companies focused on delivering high quality care to patients in their homes and in the hospital. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Post-Montgomery Ctr. One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.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 - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (484) 588-5516 EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALS: "Meraz" Suit to Recoup OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------- ELVIN MERAZ, JOSE LUIS PEREZ, and JOSUE INES PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALS, INC. and H & V CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING, LLC, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00979-BP (W.D. Mo., September 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Exceptional Professionals, Inc. is in the construction business and specializes in installing plaster, drywall, and insulation for construction projects in various states, including Missouri and Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Lui Costales, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 534-5005 Fax: (504) 272-2956 - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com - and - Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - Weston R. Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW OFFICE 110 S. Cherry Street, Suite 103 Olathe, KS 66061 Phone: (913) 782-7075 Fax: (866) 896-0287 E-mail: kslegalhelp@yahoo.com FEI COMPANY: Hialeah Retirement System Sues Over Sale to Thermo --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. FEI COMPANY, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC., POLPIS MERGER SUB CO., THOMAS F. KELLY, DONALD R. KANIA, HOMA BAHRAMI, ARIE HUIJSER, JAN C. LOBBEZOO, JAMI K. DOVER NACHTSHEIM, JAMES T. RICHARDSON and RICHARD H. WILLS, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01792-SI (E.D. Ore., September 9, 2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board and/or other violations of state and federal law arising out of the sale of FEI COMPANY to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. FEI designs, manufactures and supports a broad range of high- performance microscopy workflow solutions that provide images and answers at the micro-, nano- and picometer scales. The Plaintiff is represented by: STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. Jennifer S. Wagner Gary M. Berne, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: gberne@stollberne.com jwagner@stollberne.com ndahab@stollberne.com - and - David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Stephen H. Cypen, Esq. CYPEN & CYPEN 777 Arthur Godfrey Road, Suite 320 Miami Beach, FL 33140 Phone: (305) 532-3200 Fax: (305) 535-0050 FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Class Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the conversion. Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of the Summary Plan Description. The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The court ordered that the Plan be reformed. The Company is appealing the court's decision, and the judgment has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. As a result of this development, the Company determined that it is probable a liability exists. The Company's reasonable estimate of this liability is a range between $100 million and $200 million, with no amount within that range more probable than any other amount. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a charge of $100 million pre-tax ($61 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2015. This amount has been classified as a long-term liability. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this case. In light of the uncertainties involved in this matter, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution will not differ from the amount currently accrued by the Company. FOXX TAILS: Dancers/Entertainers' Suit Assert Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOXX TAILS and Gail Rodgers, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01477-HGD (N.D. Ala., September 8, 2016), is a collective action brought by current and former dancers/entertainers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Foxx Tails is a business entity operating as a lounge and night club featuring exotic dancer entertainment in Madison County, Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th St. No. Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Fax: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com GEORGE WASHINGTON: Failed to Properly Track Cadavers, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that less than nine months after donating her grandmother's body to George Washington University for medical research, Eileen Kostaris received a phone call. On the other end was Christina Puchalski, director of the George Washington University Institute for Spirituality and Health. There had been a "mix up," Kostaris says she was told, with some of the cadavers in the university's possession, and they could no longer verify their identities. That was in February. Kostaris says her grandmother's remains, which she expected to be returned to her as ashes, are still missing. The Gaithersburg woman on September 13, joined two others with similar stories to file a class action in D.C. Superior Court. They say George Washington University failed to properly track bodies entrusted to it, and rushed to cremate the remains as part of a cover-up upon discovering the potential issues with identification. Now donors like Kostaris can't be sure, according to the complaint, whether the cremated remains they were given are actually those of their relatives and not of a stranger. Co-plaintiff Mary Louise Powell says the ashes the university claimed were her mother's included a certificate that shows the body was cremated in December 2015 - more than a month before a university employee told Powell her mother's body was still being studied. "The university garnered the trust of the plaintiffs and other class members by promising them that if the remains of their deceased family members could be used for scientific and medical purposes that, 'the body will, at all times, be treated with respect and dignity,' and returned, after cremation, to the family after a 'twenty-four to thirty-six month period,'" the complaint reads. "The university failed to keep these sacred promises." To keep track of the bodies in its possession, according to the complaint, the university uses metal tags with identification numbers printed on them that are meant to travel wherever the bodies go. But as many as seven years ago, the university started slipping on ensuring the tags always followed the bodies, the class claims. "Tags were removed from bodies when they were transported to laboratories for study and tags were returned to the morgue without tags," the complaint states. "There was no medical, scientific or other reason to remove the tags. They were simply removed, lost and misplaced as a result of pure negligence and lack of oversight." A whistleblower brought the "irregularities" in the university's identification of the donated bodies to "high-ranking university officials" in September 2015, but the class claims the school has been returning unknown remains to family members for years. The university did not tell the families about the potential errors until January 2016, according to the complaint. Before coming clean, however, the university "rushed" to cremate the bodies, according to the complaint. This was done initially without preserving a DNA sample for later identification purposes, the class says. Powell says her mother was one of these early, sample-lacking cases. "The only reason to cremate the bodies before taking steps to identify them and to withhold the fact that DNA samples had been preserved is the apparent desire, on the part of the university, to cover up its negligence by returning cremains, at random, to families to whom they may not belong," the class claims. The school started collecting pre-cremation DNA samples thereafter, but the class says this was done sloppily too. "Both the rushed and unlawful cremation of unidentified bodies, and the saving of genetic material were done without first obtaining consent or even notifying the affected families," the complaint states. As of September 14, morning, the university had not been served in the case and said through a spokeswoman it is still working with affected families. "As we have said previously, last fall, the School of Medicine and Health Sciences learned that the management of the willed body donor program was not consistent with the standards that donors and their families deserve and expect," George Washington University spokeswoman Candace Smith said in an email. "As a result, we ended acceptance of donor bodies and began an internal review. There has been no intent on the part of the university to mislead affected families. We will address this lawsuit in an appropriate legal forum not in the news media." The class seeks $60 million as well as additional punitive damages for fraud, misrepresentation and negligence. Cary J. Hansel, a Baltimore attorney who represents the class, did not respond to a request for comment before publication. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "London" Suit Alleges Zofran(R)-Linked Death ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER LONDON, individually and on behalf of and as representative for M.L. a deceased minor, and CHARLES LONDON, individually Plaintiffs, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC and SANDOZ, INC., Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01124 (M.D.N.C., September 9, 2016) seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from the alleged injuries and wrongful death of Plaintiffs' minor daughter, M.L., as a result of Plaintiff Jennifer London's prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran(R) and/or its generic equivalent, also known as ondansetron. GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline is a subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline plc and is the successor in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the original New Drug Application for Zofran. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Grimes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, LLP 1211 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 333-1000 Fax: (704) 333-6677 E-mail: egrimes@demayolaw.com - and - Adriana Suarez Desmond, Esq. Steven J. Skikos, Esq. Adriana Suarez Desmond, Esq. SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH One Sansome St., Suite 2830 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 546-7300 Fax: (415) 546-7301 E-mail: sskikos@skikos.com adesmond@skikos.com GRANITE CITY: Faces "Koenig" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Act --------------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA KOENIG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CITY FOOD & BREWERY, LTD. and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01396-AJS (W.D. Penn., September 9, 2016), alleges that Defendant systematically and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, by, among other things, failing to satisfy the notice requirements of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and PMWA. Defendant Granite City Food & Brewery, Ltd. owns and operates two restaurant brands in the United States. They are Granite City Food & Brewery and Cadillac Ranch All American Bar & Grill. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-322-9243 Fax: 412-231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610-822-3700 Fax: 610-822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com rgray@cwg-law.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-792-6676 Fax: 215-792-6676 E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com GREE ELECTRIC: Four Insurance Companies File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that four insurance companies filed a class action in Los Angeles, against a Chinese appliance-maker, claiming it sold 2.5 million fire-prone dehumidifiers in the United States, which could cause billions of dollars in damages. More than 2.2 million of the dangerous appliances made by Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai are still in U.S. homes, bearing prominent brand names including Frigidaire, GE and Kenmore, the insurers say in the Sept. 8 lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal Court. Only Gree and its subsidiaries are named as defendants. Gree built the dehumidifiers with plastic parts that could not withstand the heat they put out, Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest et al. say in the lawsuit. Gree China promised its U.S. partners, including Gree USA, that its products met the safety standards of Underwriters Laboratories, including UL 94, which "requires that consumer electric products, including dehumidifiers, use plastics that have specific burn and flame rates in order to prevent, reduce and limit the risk of fire hazards," the complaint states. The insurers say Gree knew its dehumidifiers would fail the standard but that UL had no way to test them on its own. General Electric forced Gree China to upgrade the dehumidifiers bearing the GE brand in 2011, but Gree did not make the changes to the ones made for other brands and in 2012 Gree rejected safety concerns raised by another partner, the insurers say. "Gree China, Gree Hong Kong, Gree USA and [US partner] MJC continued to sell their defective and unreasonably dangerous dehumidifiers until September of 2013, when the dehumidifiers were recalled pursuant to a voluntary recall program" with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the insurers say. Only that year and the next, under pressure from the CPSC, did Gree finally recall 2.5 million humidifiers. Even so, in March this year, the commission hit the three Gree companies with a record-setting $15.45 million civil penalty. Despite the recalls, the insurers say, only 240,000 of the dangerous machines had been returned as of May 2015. "Out of the 2,500,000 dehumidifiers with these common defects, approximately 2,260,000 of these defective dehumidifiers manufactured by Gree China remain in U.S. homes and residences, posing a serious risk to the life and property of US homeowners," the class action states. In addition to fires, the appliances can cause smoke damage. Hundreds of insurance companies could be on the hook to thousands of policyholders, the insurers say. Citing data from the CPSC, they say insurance claims could cost an average of $37,000. Suing for themselves and other underwriters, the insurers say Gree "knew or should have known that the dehumidifiers had defects that could cause catastrophic property damage, personal injury and/or death." Mark C. Zebrowski -- mzebrowski@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster in San Diego, who has represented Gree in other litigation over the dehumidifiers, declined to comment because he had not yet discussed the class action with company officials. A representative of Gree USA did not return a call about the lawsuit on September 12. The insurers seek subrogation rights to take over and enforce their injured policyholders' claims against the Gree defendants. The lawsuit identifies individual policyholders from Georgia, Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota, each of whom suffered at least $2,000 in property damages from burning dehumidifiers. The insurers are represented by Nathan Dooley with of Cozen O'Connor, which has "the largest subrogation practice in the United States," according to the 36-page complaint. Neither he nor co-counsel at the firm could be reached for comment late on September 12. The insurers seek class certification, restitution, recalls and replacements, and punitive damages for negligence, product liability, deceptive trade and unfair competition. H&R BLOCK: Compliance Fee Litigation Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the so-called Compliance Fee Litigation. On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. "We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal," the Company said. "On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on remand. "We filed an additional appeal. On March 8, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. We filed an application for transfer of the appeal in the Supreme Court of Missouri, which was denied. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter," the Company said. H&R BLOCK: 8th Cir. Appeal in "Perras" Case Underway ---------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the plaintiff's appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending. On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining 2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015. In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment, along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the state of California. "We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. On April 29, 2016, the court granted our motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending," the Company said. "We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." * * * The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 7, 2016, entered a briefing schedule, which sets the following: -- Appendix due on July 18, 2016. -- Brief of Appellant Ronald Perras due July 18, 2016. -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. HARVEST NATURAL: Wins Dismissal of "Phillips" Case -------------------------------------------------- Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, that the court has granted Company's motion to dismiss Phillips case. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its executive officers have been subject to a number of class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), which lawsuits were consolidated into John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes, originally filed with the Court on March 22, 2013 (the "Phillips Case"). The complaints in the Phillips Case alleged that the Company and its executive officers made certain false or misleading public statements and demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. On August 25, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Phillips Case and entered a final judgment dismissing the Phillips Case in its entirety. The class action plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the dismissal. HEWLETT PACKARD: Claims of 2 Individuals Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that in the case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, only the claims of the two individual named plaintiffs remain pending in the district court. Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP Inc. violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification on March 29, 2016. On April 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. On July 13, 2016, the court granted HP's motion to decertify the FLSA class that had been conditionally certified on February 13, 2014. HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Suit Over "Smart Install" Software --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in San Diego claims Hewlett Packard advertises printers as having "Smart Install" software, though the feature is disabled. HOMEAWAY: Faces Housing Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a HomeAway renter told a black customer that he did not rent to her "kind," she says in a housing discrimination class action, in Austin, Texas Federal Court. HP INC: Case Management Conference in "Forsyth" Set for Nov. 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- HP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company is facing a class action lawsuit, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012. * * * On August 19, the Court entered an Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 11/9/2016. Case Management Conference set for 11/16/2016 10:00 a.m. at the US District Court, 280 S. First St., San Jose, CA 95113 in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor. The order was signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. The Plaintiffs are represented by Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq., at Andrus Anderson LLP. HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- HP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that an appellate court has heard oral argument in a class action appeal in the case, Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. The putative securities class action was filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. The appellate court heard oral argument on July 7, 2016. INFUSION BRANDS: "Flint" Class Action Not Yet Served ---------------------------------------------------- As Seen On TV, Inc said in its Form 10-KT Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the transition period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, that on April 29, 2016, the Company received notice (but not official service) that Infusion Brands, Inc., its discontinued subsidiary, may be named as a defendant in Flint v. Infusion Brands, Inc., et al, a purported class action case filed but not yet served in federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated plaintiffs were damaged when Infusion Brands, Inc. ceased to sell replacement parts and accessories for a former product, the DualTools PS7000, a polisher/sander. Lowe's, Inc. has also sought indemnification from Infusion Brands, Inc. for its costs related to the action. Infusion Brands, Inc., as a discontinued subsidiary, has no assets and no ability to pay any judgment that may be rendered. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. INSULET CORPORATION: ATRS et al. Balk at Bid to Dismiss Case ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet Corporation et al., 1:15-cv-12345 (D. Mass.), Plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, City of Bristol Pension Fund, and City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System filed on Sept. 16 a Memorandum in Opposition regarding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. Insulet Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, that between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, which remains outstanding, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of loss, in connection with this matter. INTEGRITY REALTY: Faces "Flaesgarten" Suit in Ohio District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER FLAESGARTEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. INTEGRITY REALTY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02253-DCN, was filed on September 9, 2016 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. INTEGRITY REALTY GROUP, LLC -- http://www.integrityrealty.com.ph/ -- provides apartment homes in Cleveland and Northeast Ohio markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 4580 Stephen Circle, NW, Suite 201 Canton, OH 44718 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Fax:(330)754-1430 ITT EDUCATIONAL: Ex-Employee Files Action Over Sexual Harassment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that ITT Educational Services shut down its 137 campuses, stranding 35,000 students just before the fall term, it was hit with a civil lawsuit from an employee who says it ignored her complaints about a violent student who sexually assaulted and shot her -- and it fired her on her first day back at work. ITT shut down all of its campuses on Sept. 6 after the U.S. Department of Education barred it from accepting students who receive federal aid. In its Aug. 25 order, the Department of Education gave the chain college 30 days to post a $152 million surety bond to cover tuition refunds and other liabilities. ITT shares dropped by more than one-third, and on Sept. 6 the chain announced it was closing all of its schools immediately. Also that day, former ITT "enrollment representative" Kristen Trease sued the company in Phoenix Federal Court, seeking punitive damages for harassment and retaliation. She says ITT Technical Institute "completely and utterly ignor(ed)" her complaints of sexual harassment "at the hands of a student with a known, violent, sexual criminal history." Carlos Webb enrolled at the Phoenix campus in 2011, and Trease was his representative. Webb already had been convicted in New Mexico of rape, kidnapping and burglary, and wore an ankle monitor at the time of his enrollment, Trease says in the lawsuit. Soon after Webb was admitted, he made sexual advances to her and asked her out on dates, and though she complained to supervisors and told them she was scared of Webb, due to his advances and his criminal history, ITT Tech "took no steps to investigate her complaints nor cease Mr. Webb's unwelcomed conduct of a sexual nature," the lawsuit states. Webb removed his ankle monitor and was sent back to prison, but ITT Tech readmitted him in 2012, Trease says. Again assigned to help Webb, he told her to get him an identification badge for him, but to "keep it and rub it all over her chest," she says. She complained to her supervisors again, but no one investigated because they didn't want to lose Webb's tuition, Trease says. Trease's attorney Ty Taber told Courthouse News that ITT Tech refused to act despite a string of complaints against Webb. "Nothing is done," Taber said. "The multiple opportunities that ITT and similarly situated employers have to do something and they don't do anything. . . . I guess that's what happens when you have a for-profit business. The emphasis is on profit." On April 24, 2012, as Trease tried to leave campus at 8 p.m., Webb approached her and said he needed to talk. When she declined, Webb told her, "I'm going to do something crazy; go to your car." As she backed away from him, Webb held a gun to her neck, said, "You knew I liked you; you should have been with me," then forced her across the street and sexually assaulted her. A motorcyclist drove by, heard Trease's cries for help and shined a light toward her. She broke free from Webb, and he shot her through the chest. Another of Trease's attorneys, Burr Shields, described her as a "trouper." "She was shot right through her chest, and her collarbone was broken during the assault as well, and that still needs surgery," Shields said. Taber added: "It's been an unbelievable nightmare for her. You don't expect to have this happen. There is no way to prepare or deal. This case gives me the shivers." After surgery, Trease spent several days in a coma. She returned to work in October 2012 after recovering from the shooting, and was fired on her first day back. "She received an email the day of her return to work, and was told it was sent to her by mistake," Shields said. "ITT denied it was going to fire her, but later that same day did." Webb was convicted in 2014 of attempted second-degree murder, kidnapping and two counts of aggravated assault. Trease seeks damages for lost income, and compensatory and punitive damages for sexual harassment, retaliation and disability discrimination. "She did her best to mitigate her economic loss after being fired on the heels of all this, and she's inspirational," Shields said. "She's been entitled to justice for a long time. ... Now it's time for her to sit in front of a jury and get her remedy." Trease filed a similar lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2012, but it was dismissed by a judge who found workers' compensation an appropriate remedy. A spokeswoman from ITT Tech could not be reached for contact. Attorneys Shields and Taber are with Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi, in Phoenix. Since ITT shut down a week ago, former employees have filed federal class actions in Delaware, Illinois and Indiana, under the WARN Act, for being laid off without 60 days notice. The chain school had about 8,000 employees across the country when it folded. When it shut down it blamed the closure on the actions of the Department of Education. However, the profit-seeking chain had been sued repeatedly for its recruiting practices, including numerous class actions from students over the years; lawsuits from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2014 and the SEC in 2015; and lawsuits from the states of Massachusetts and California. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia issued civil investigative demands against ITT in 2014 under consumer protection laws. The sudden closure of ITT, a week or two before the fall term starts, has left its 35,000 students scrambling to find new schools. Private, profit-seeking schools have grown tremendously in recent years, with more than 1.5 million students last year, according to federal data. Another large chain, Corinthian Colleges, also closed after multiple class actions from students and faced enforcement actions. The students and the federal government essentially accused the chains of using federal student aid as a cash cow, and/or misrepresenting the quality of the education they offered, and graduates' employment rates. Corinthian Colleges had 72,000 students when it went bankrupt. The U.S. Department of Education in June recommended shutting down the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, the largest national accreditor for profit-seeking colleges. ACICS oversees 243 educational institutions, many of them profit- seeking, that enroll more than 800,000 students, and which received $4.76 billion in federal student aid in 2015, according to the Kent State University publication Inside Higher Ed. ACICS found "few if any quality issues" at Corinthian Colleges 59 campuses virtually until the chain collapsed in 2014, despite numerous class actions and state and federal investigations, according to Inside Higher Ed. The Department of Education gave its recommendation on ACICS in June to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) in June, which has 90 days to rule on the recommendation and return it to the Department of Education. If the DOE decides to de-accredit the accreditor, and survives what is sure to be a flurry of lawsuits, schools will have 18 months to find a new accreditor. The board member who introduced the motion to kill ACICS at the NACIQI meeting in June said ACICS had "serious, substantive problems with its oversight, which allowed the 'systemic corruption' of some of its member institutions," according to Inside Higher Ed. Profit-seeking chain colleges grew tremendously after deregulation led by former Republican U.S. Speaker of the House Tom DeLay. The only three members who opposed the motion to terminate ACICS at the NACIQI's June meeting were appointed by congressional Republicans. J. C. PENNEY: Marcus Consolidated Class Action Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the Marcus consolidated class action securities litigation. The Company said, "The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper." "Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12, 2015. "Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 25, 2016, and defendants submitted a response to the motion on April 15, 2016. The motion was heard by the court on June 29, 2016. "Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, and seeks similar relief. On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." J. C. PENNEY: $4.5MM Accord in ERISA Action Awaits Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the $4.5 million settlement in an ERISA class action litigation remains subject to court approval. JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29, 2015. The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available $4.5 million to settle class members' claims. "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends "Tschudy" Class Action -------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the Tschudy employment class action litigation. JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the Company, the California court decertified the class on December 9, 2015. On March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion for summary judgment, and on May 4, 2016, entered judgment for JCP on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification, which the Illinois court granted on March 8, 2016. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Settlement in Pricing Class Action Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the company is awaiting the court's decision to approve the settlement in the Pricing Class Action Litigation. JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v. J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for certification of a class consisting of all people who, between November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the stated original or regular price (excluding those who only received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchases. "The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, and in accordance with the term of the settlement, we have established a $50 million reserve to settle class members' claims. The court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A final approval hearing was held on August 25, 2016 and the parties are awaiting the court's decision," the Company said. JOY GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Komatsu ----------------------------------------------------------- JOYCE MCGREGOR, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOY GLOBAL, INC., EDWARD L. DOHENY II, STEVEN L. GERARD, MARK J. GLIEBE, JOHN T. GREMP, JOHN NILS HANSON, GALE E. KLAPPA, RICHARD B. LOYND, P. ERIC SIEGERT, JAMES H. TATE, KOMATSU AMERICA CORP., KOMATSU LTD., and PINE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1213 (E.D. Wis., September 8, 2016), was filed over a proposed transaction under which Joy Global, Inc. will be acquired by Komatsu America Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pine Solutions, Inc. Through its market-leading businesses, Joy Global Surface Mining and Joy Global Underground Mining, Joy Global manufactures and markets original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both the above-ground and underground mining industries and certain industrial applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (484) 588-5516 JUST SALAD: Faces "Camara" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- FAMOUDOU CAMARA, and PAULINO J. ZAPOTITLAN on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. JUST SALAD 600 THIRD LLC d/b/a Just Salad Murray Hill; JUST SALAD GP LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; JUST SALAD PARTNERS LLC d/b/a Just Salad Financial District; JUST SALAD 315 PAS LLC d/b/a Just Salad 315 Park Ave South; JUST SALAD 320 PARK AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park Avenue; JUST SALAD 134 37TH ST. LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; JUST SALAD 30 ROCK LLC d/b/a Just Salad 30 Rock; JUST SALAD 706 6TH AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Chelsea; JUST SALAD WWP LLC d/b/a Just Salad World Wide Plaza; JUST SALAD 663 LEX LLC d/b/a Just Salad Lexington; JUST SALAD PARK SLOPE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park Slope; JUST SALAD 8TH ST LLC d/b/a Just Salad 8th Street; JUST SALAD 1471 3RD AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper East Side; JUST SALAD 1ST AVENUE LLC d/b/a Just Salad1st Avenue and 70th; JUST SALAD HUDSON SQUARE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Hudson Square; JUST SALAD STATE STREET LLC d/b/a Just Salad Downtown Brooklyn; JUST SALAD HERALD SQUARE LLC d/b/a Just Salad Macy's Herald Square; JUST SALAD 90 BROAD STREET LLC d/b/a Just Salad 90 Broad Street; JUST SALAD 2056 BROADWAY LLC d/b/a Just Salad Upper West Side; JUST SALAD 140 8TH AVE LLC d/b/a Just Salad 140 8th Avenue; JUST SALAD 233 BROADWAY LLC d/b/a Just Salad 233 Broadway; JUST SALAD WOODBURY LLC d/b/a Just Salad Woodbury; JUST SALAD 291 7TH AVENUE LLC d/b/a Just Salad FIT; and NICHOLAS F. KENNER, ROBERT CRESPI, and LAURA PENSIERO, Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-07078 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2016), was filed under the Federal Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant Corporations are all members of JUST SALAD, a "healthy fast food" chain store that "focuses on organically- grown, locally-sourced and nutritionally-balanced recipes, all curated by a registered dietitian." The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement reached in the securities class action litigation against the Company remains subject to approval. The Company said, "On December 18, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (captioned Li v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 5:15-cv-05841-EJD) was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the Class Action Court, alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Martin Shkreli, our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer." "On December 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Class Action Court (captioned Sciabacucchi v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 3:15-cv-05992-CRB), similarly alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Mr. Shkreli. "On December 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Class Action Court (captioned Isensee v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-06331-EJD) also alleging violation of the federal securities laws by Mr. Shkreli. "On April 28, 2016, the Class Action Court consolidated the cases, which we refer to collectively as the Securities Class Action Litigation, and appointed certain plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action Litigation were seeking damages of $20.0 million on behalf of all the affected members of the class represented in the Securities Class Action Litigation, or the Securities Class Action Members. "On June 16, 2016, a settlement stipulation, or the Securities Class Action Settlement, was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Subject to the approval of the Class Action Court, the Securities Class Action Settlement required us to issue 300,000 shares of common stock and submit a payment of $250,000 the Securities Class Action Members and advance insurance proceeds of $1.25 million to the Securities Class Action Members. "We refer to the consideration owed to the Securities Class Action Members under the Securities Class Action Settlement as the Securities Class Action Settlement Consideration. Subject to the final approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement, any Securities Class Action Member is entitled to share in the Securities Class Action Settlement Consideration. The Securities Class Action Settlement provides for releases and related injunctions to be granted for the benefit of, among others, us, Ronald Martell, Herb Cross and all of our past, present and future directors, officers and employees, excluding Mr. Shkreli. "Alternatively, Securities Class Action Members may exclude themselves from the Securities Class Action Settlement and are thereby not bound by the terms of the Securities Class Action Settlement nor entitled to receive any amount of the Securities Class Acton Settlement Consideration. Such individuals remain free to assert claims against us and such claims were subordinated to the level of our common stock and otherwise remain subject to our objection. Our agreement to the Securities Class Action Settlement was not in any way an admission of our wrongdoing or liability." KC JEWELRY: Inflates Weight of Small Diamonds, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that KC Jewelry and its owner- operators Rouben Youssian and Ramin Yosian inflate the weight of small diamonds they sell to co-defendant Modern Jewelry and other jewelers, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. LG CORP: Faces "A. Frost" No-Poaching Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Silicon Valley may be the world's center for technological advancement, but another lawsuit over no-poaching agreements indicates that employees feel the industry may be behind the times where they're concerned. An LG sales manager known in the class action as "A. Frost" sued his employer and its competitor Samsung in San Jose, Calif. Federal Court this past week, accusing the two companies of agreeing not to not hire each others' workers with an eye toward fixing employee wages at an artificially low level. "Defendants entered into, implemented, and policed the agreement with the knowledge of the overall conspiracy, and did so with the intent and effect of suppressing mobility and information sharing between and among employees of the companies, and thereby fixing the compensation of the employees of participating companies at artificially low levels," Frost says in the complaint. LG and Samsung are both headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, and have extensive offices in Northern California, where they compete with other Silicon Valley industry heavyweights like Apple and Google in various technology markets including smartphones, computers, tablets and appliances like televisions, dishwashers and refrigerators. Because of the similarity of the two companies, they become the most likely employment alternative for a worker working at either company, Frost said -- meaning the conspiracy not only injured Frost but all of the companies' employees. "Competition and mobility would allow the workforces each to demand -- and collectively receive -- higher wages, benefits and other compensation, either in exchange for switching employers or for staying with the current employer," Frost said in the complaint. Frost says he learned of the conspiracy in October 2013, when he was contacted by a recruiting officer about a job opening at Samsung. Soon after making Frost aware of the opening, the recruiting officer recanted, citing the no-poaching agreement. The wage-fixing scheme began in 2005 and was known through the upper echelons of the corporate structure in both companies, which sought to keep the agreement secret from the United States workforce, Frost says. While Frost is the only plaintiff presently, the complaint estimates tens of thousands of employees were affected by the scheme. Silicon Valley companies have shown a propensity to engage in no- poaching, wage-fixing agreements. The U.S. Department of Justice first took antitrust action against industry titans in 2010, when it filed a complaint accusing Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, Intuit and Pixar of violating the Sherman Act by agreeing not to "cold-call" each other's employees. The department and the accused companies quickly settled, agreeing in principle to stipulations that forbade the no-cold-call agreements and wider prohibitions against meddling in the industry's labor market. No compensation was tied to the settlement, but workers brought a civil case against the aforementioned companies and the ensuing settlement eventually amounted to approximately $435 million to be distributed to the affected employees. The lawsuit focused on the network of connections surrounding former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who is widely perceived as being the driving force behind the wage-suppression scheme. Jobs was also the CEO of Pixar when it entered into a similar wage-suppression scheme involving a slew of major movie studios aimed at keeping its workforce salaries stagnant, according to a 2014 lawsuit filed in Federal Court. In that case, Robert Nitsch, who was a senior character effects artist for DreamWorks and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony Pictures Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios -- including Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and Lucasfilm, Sony Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers -- conspired to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical workers. Blue Sky Studios recently agreed to a settlement in the case. Sony has also gotten preliminary approval for a settlement with the class, which Nitsch says includes about 10,000 people. Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when the late Jobs bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in 1986 and created Pixar. A Samsung representative said the company will not comment on the case. LG did not return a request for comment as of press time. Frost is suing for violations of the Sherman Act and the California companion Cartwright Act and unfair competition. He seeks treble damages, restitution and disgorgement. The case is A. FROST, Plaintiff, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. LG CORPORATION; LG ELECTRONICS INC.; LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.; LG DISPLAY AMERICA INC.; SAMSUNG GROUP; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-05206 (N.D. Cal., September 9, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 555 Montgomery, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com - and - Stuart G. Gross, Esq. GROSS & KLEIN LLP The Embarcadero 9 Pier, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 671-4628 Fax: (415) 480-6688 Email: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael J. Kane, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bm.net mkane@bm.net - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612-338-4605 Fax: 612-338-4692 Email: veasades@heinsmills.com - and - John Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 34 Sunset Blvd. Long Beach, NJ 08008 Phone: (646) 245-8502 Fax: (609) 385-0745 Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Appeal of Case Dismissal Pending ----------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit to the Supreme Court of the state of Delaware. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund and Laborers' District Council Industry Pension Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a derivative lawsuit on behalf of lululemon against certain current and former directors of lululemon, captioned Laborers' District Council Industry Pension Fund v. Bensoussan, et al., C.A. No. 11293-CB. Plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to lululemon by allegedly failing to investigate certain trades of lululemon stock owned by Dennis J. Wilson in 2013. Plaintiffs also claim that Mr. Wilson breached his fiduciary duties by making his broker aware of certain non-public, material events prior to executing sales of lululemon stock on Mr. Wilson's behalf. On June 14, 2016 the Court dismissed the action for failure to adequately plead that demand on the board was excused and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the state of Delaware. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends Gathmann-Landini Action ---------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed on October 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. * * * In August, Lululemon USA filed a motion to dismiss an Amended Complaint, and the Plaintiffs filed their Opposition. The Hon. Joan M Azrack presides over the case. The Defendants are represented by Garrett David Kennedy -- garrett.kennedy@dlapiper.com -- Daniel Turinsky -- daniel.turinsky@dlapiper.com -- Katharine J. Liao -- katharine.liao@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP. MAC ALTAMONTE: "Neusch" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Neusch, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MAC ALTAMONTE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-01583-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla., September 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and regular wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant has owned and operated a donut shop known as Dunkin' Donuts within the Middle District of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL Phone: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------ Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that California court has taken a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action litigation under submission. On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh) made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the Saratoga litigation. On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took the matter under submission. MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Ontario Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that pretrial proceedings are underway in a class action lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. MEDTRONIC PLC: Has Deals to Settle 4,300 INFUSE Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of September 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 4,300 of these claims, and certain of the remaining claims are expected to proceed to trial beginning in fiscal year 2017. MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 6,200 Pelvic Mesh Claims ------------------------------------------------- Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that as of September 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 6,200 of claims related to Pelvic mesh products. The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In July 2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries. As of September 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 6,200 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets as discussed above. MEDTRONIC PLC: W.Va. Pipe Trades and Phil Pace Appeal Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit by West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace have appealed the dismissal of the cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. MEDTRONIC PLC: Minnesota Supreme Court Decision Expected in 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court in the class action lawsuit related to the Covidien acquisition is expected in calendar year 2017. On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected in calendar year 2017. MENASHE RESTAURANT: Faces "Gomez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Mauricio Gomez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Menashe Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Ricky's Cafe and Ursula Besdine Ponce, in her individual and professional capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05034 (E.D.N.Y., September 11, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Menashe Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant/cafe named "Ricky's Cafe" that serves food and drinks to customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Phone: (718) 777-0400 Fax: (718) 777-0599 Email: ari@pnlawyers.com MENTOR GRAPHICS: Class Not Certified in "Haroutunian" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Mentor Graphics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a class has not been certified in the Haroutunian securities class action. The Company said, "On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit, Haroutunian v. Mentor Graphics, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company and three executive officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of our officers made material misstatements and omissions in press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission filings and analyst conference calls concerning the company's business prospects and financial projections that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock." "The lead plaintiff has been appointed and plaintiff's amended complaint was filed with the court on August 10, 2016. A class of plaintiffs has not been certified by the court." MICHIGAN: Schools Fail to Provide Basic Literacy Tools, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marcie Shields, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action claims the state of Michigan is violating the constitutional rights of students in Detroit's public schools by failing to provide them with adequate instruction or tools to acquire basic literacy. In a complaint filed on September 13, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Michigan, parents and students of the city's public school system say that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and the state's board of education have shown a complete lack of interest in Detroit's five lowest performing schools and the black children from low-income families who have to attend them. This disinterest and the resulting lack of investment in the troubled schools is denying young black students "the most basic building block of education," the complaint says. The plaintiffs claim that through policy and in practice, Michigan persistently and deliberately deprives disadvantaged black students of a "fighting chance" to succeed, by failing to provide them with adequate, up-to-date instructional materials, appropriately-trained teaching staff, and safe school buildings. The 136-page complaint cites student achievement data compiled by the state, and separately, by the nonprofit Excellent Schools Detroit, that show literacy proficiency rates in Detroit's worst performing schools hovers near zero in nearly all subject area. Michigan's statewide accountability system rates these five schools one, two, four, and six, the complaint says, while Excellent Schools Detroit has assigned the schools represented in the lawsuit grades "F" and "D." In one of the five schools, the plaintiffs claim, third-graders have a proficiency score of 4.2% on Michigan's 2015-16 English assessment test, compared with 46.0% of third-graders statewide. In the same school, the complaint alleges, the only books third- graders had access to were picture books -- until their teacher bought other books with money out of her own pocket -- halfway through the school year, the complaint says. Similarly, at a charter school within the district, only 9.5% of third-grade students scored proficient in English, as compared to 46.0% of third-graders statewide, the complaint adds. The plaintiffs say that in addition to being denied proper instructional materials, students are also forced to try to learn in grossly over-crowded classrooms due to the low-performing schools having an insufficient number of teachers. In some cases, they say, these classes are left in the hands of people who do not have the minimum state requirements to teach -- including an eighth-grader who was pressed into teaching seventh and eighth grade math classes for a month because no adult teacher was available. Photographs incorporated into the complaint show buckets placed in school hallways to catch rainwater, evidence of rodent and insect infestations, and non-functioning drinking fountains, and toilets sealed up with plastic trash bags. According to the complaint, many school restrooms lack soap and toilet paper. The dire conditions described in the complaint include classrooms and school buildings that are inadequately heated during the winter and are too hot in the spring and early fall because of malfunctioning air conditioning. In addition, the plaintiffs say, the playground of one elementary school is so poorly maintained and secured that the children who are forced use it routinely injure themselves and tear their clothing on jagged edges on the grounds, and play on grounds strewn with spent bullets, used condoms and sex toys, and dead vermin. At a news conference on September 14, plaintiff attorney Mark Rosenbaum said, "For the last 15 years, the state has run the Detroit schools, has run them into the ground." "Literacy," Rosenbaum says, "is the cornerstone of all education; it is the cornerstone of our democracy. Absent literacy, a child has no way to obtain knowledge, communicate with the world, or participate in the institutions and activities of citizenship." Co-counsel Kathryn Eidman said attorneys are focusing on Detroit because it has the lowest proficiency rates of any large urban school district in the U.S. The state took over management of the Detroit Public Schools, now official Since 2009, a series of emergency managers, first appointed by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and then, by Gov. Snyder, have overseen the day-to-day operation of the district. Despite the oversight, however, the school district's financial problems have worsened, prompting state lawmakers to pass a sweeping $617 million package in June intended to once again prop the school system up and fund a series of reforms. The plaintiffs want the state to take the additional step of monitoring "conditions that deny access to literacy," and provide appropriate intervention and support. John Austin, president of the Michigan Department of Education, told the Detroit Free Press he believes that board should not have been named as a defendant in the case because it has repeatedly sought increased education funding from the governor and the state Legislature. The board, Austin explained, has no power to approve such funding. "It's the Legislature that holds the purse strings, and the governor who proposes budgets," he said. A spokesman for Gov. Snyder declined to comment on the lawsuit, as did Chrystal Wilson, spokeswoman for the Detroit Public Schools Community District. In addition to Rosenbaum and Eidman and their legal team from the Los Angeles-based Public Counsel, the plaintiffs are represented by Michael Kelley, of Sidley Austin LLP in Los Angeles; Jennifer Wheeler, of Sidley Austin LLP in Chicago; Bruce Miller, of Miller Cohen PLC in Detroit; Evan Caminker, of the University of Michigan Law School; and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: "Litwin" Suit Files Suit Over Randstad Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD LITWIN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC., TIMOTHY T. YATES, EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., JOHN GAULDING, JAMES P. MCVEIGH, GILLIAN MUNSON, JEFFREY F. RAYPORT, and ROBERTO TUNIOLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11844 (D. Mass., September 9, 2016), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Monster will be acquired by Randstad Holding NV, through its U.S.-based subsidiary Randstad North America, Inc. and Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary Merlin Global Acquisition, Inc. MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC., a Delaware corporation, is a global online employment solutions company that provides job seeking, career management, recruitment and talent management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Phone: (781) 453-0100 E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 MORELIA MEXICAN: Faces "Brens" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ DIONISIO BRENS and GREGORIO OLMOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORELIA MEXICAN REST. INC. (d/b/a MADE IN MEXICO), ISMAEL GARCIA, and WILLIAM SEGURA Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07073 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at 3950 10th Avenue, New York, New York 10034 under the name Made in Mexico. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Next Status Conference Set for October 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the next status conference with the Court in the MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation is set for October 28, 2016. On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks (collectively, "Navistar") in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, six additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). From June 13-17, 2016, the court conducted a certification hearing in the N&C Action. There are no court dates scheduled in any of the other Canadian Actions at this time. On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the District of Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions name both NIC and Navistar, Inc. The U.S. Actions allege matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the then-pending U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S. Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S. Actions. At the request of the various law firms representing the plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. On May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs' class certification motion. The next status conference with the Court is set for October 28, 2016. "Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for October 25, 2016, on the settlement in the shareholder litigation. The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J. Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as defendants." "These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and future business prospects and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. "In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating all 10b-5 Cases before one judge sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and in July 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in October 2013. The Consolidated Amended Complaint enlarged the proposed class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as defendants. "On December 17, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 22, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by August 22, 2014. "On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which narrowed the claims in two ways. First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the defendants. The Second Amended Complaint brought claims against only Navistar, Dan Ustian, Andrew J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period. In the prior complaint, the class period began on June 9, 2009. In the Second Amended Complaint, it begins on March 10, 2010. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 23, 2014. "In November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a defendant. On July 10, 2015, the Court issued its Opinion and Order on our Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court (i) dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and Jack Allen and (ii) dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against Daniel C. Ustian, the only remaining defendant, except for claims regarding two of Mr. Ustian's statements. Further, all of the dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice except for claims based on statements made subsequent to the lead plaintiff's last purchase of the Company's stock (the "Post-Purchase Claims"). The Court determined the lead plaintiff lacked standing to assert the Post-Purchase Claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. "At a December 1, 2015 status conference, the parties reported that a settlement in principle had been reached, subject to, among other things, final documentation, confirmatory discovery and Court approval, and the Court filed a minute entry reflecting such report. On May 25, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, as well as the class notice to be sent in connection with the settlement. The Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for October 25, 2016." NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Savings Plan Beneficiaries File Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLIFTON W. MARSHALL, THOMAS W. HALL, MARIA E. MIDKIFF, MANUEL A. GONZALEZ, RICKY L. HENDRICKSON, PHILLIP B. BROOKS, AND HAROLD HYLTON, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons on behalf of the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, DENISE PEPPARD, IAN ZISKIN, MICHAEL HARDESTY, KENNETH L. BEDINGFIELD, KENNETH N. HEINTZ, TALHA A. ZOBAIR, PRABU NATARAJAN, DANIEL HICKEY, MARIA T. NORMAN, STEPHEN C. MOVIUS, MARK A. CAYLOR, MARK RABINOWITZ, SILVA THOMAS, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06794 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2016), was filed individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries in the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan. Northrop Grumman Corporation -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/ -- is a global security company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-6115 Fax: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com - and - William A. White, Esq. HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP One California Plaza, 37th Floor 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147 Phone: (213) 620-0460 Fax: (213) 620-4840 E-mail: wwhite@hillfarrer.com NYC BUILDING: Faces "Quiroz" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN NAJERA QUIROZ and SERGIO CASTILLO HUERTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NYC BUILDING MANAGEMENT LLC (d/b/a NYC BUILDING MANAGEMENT) and IVAN SUN, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07077 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor. Defendants own, operate, and/or control 15 residential buildings located at different addresses around Manhattan. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, that the Company is in the discovery phase of the case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527. On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company under California's private attorney general act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report. Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results. As a result of the filing of the Petitions, this case is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Beeney" Case in California Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, that the case, Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, has been stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on the plaintiff's motion was held on November 24, 2015. At such hearing, the Court certified a class with respect to two of the plaintiff's claims and refused to certify a class with respect to the plaintiff's three remaining claims. As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report. Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results. As a result of the filing of the Petitions, this case is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case in California Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, that the case, Shayna Broadstone, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp, and Does 1-100, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC594799, has been stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. On September 16, 2015, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for four violations of California's wage and hour rules and regulations with regard to the Company's "on call" shifts for its retail associates. The complaint seeks class certification, appointment of the plaintiff as a class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The action is stayed until the date of the first status conference. The Company believes that three of the plaintiff's four claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitation, and that all of the claims are subject to a valid arbitration agreement which prohibits the plaintiff from pursuing her claims on a collective basis. As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report. Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results. As a result of the filing of the Petitions, this case is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. PAPA FRESH: "Mayoral-Climico" Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRO MAYORAL-CLIMICO, and JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAPA FRESH, INC. d/b/a Papa John's; RICHARD D. SCHRAGGER, and ALICE M. LAMB Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-07079 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2016), alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law. Papa John's is a restaurant company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation. Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D., Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16- CV-00696-BMC-GRB. Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, or non-defendant Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc., since August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. Putative class representatives have not specified a damage amount in their complaint. "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation," the Company said. PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Action ------------------------------------------------------ Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the "Michaeli" derivative and class action complaint. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors (collectively, the "Defendants")." "On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. "In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the Defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit. The Defendants filed their answer to the Amended Complaint on February 19, 2016. "We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter." PERFORMANCE FOOD: Nov. 2016 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that a final approval hearing has been set in November 2016, on the $1.4 million settlement in the case, Laumea v. Performance Food Group, Inc. The Company said, "In May 2014, a former employee of our Roma of Southern California distribution center filed a putative class action lawsuit in the San Bernardino County, California Superior Court against us. We removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California." "In September 2014, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. There are different counts for which the putative classes differ. The first class is proposed to be all former and current employees employed by our Performance Foodservice and Vistar segments in California in non-exempt positions at any time during the period beginning May 30, 2010 to the present, or the "California Class." With respect to the California Class, the lawsuit alleges that we (1) failed to pay overtime as required by California statute, (2) failed to provide meal periods and to pay compensation for such meal periods, (3) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (4) engaged in unfair trade practices by failing to pay overtime or to provide meal periods, or pay compensation in lieu thereof. The lawsuit further alleges the plaintiff is entitled to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act. "The second putative class is proposed to be all members of the California Class who separated from employment at any time during the period from May 30, 2011 to the present, or the "California Subclass." With respect to the California Subclass, the lawsuit alleges that we failed to pay all compensation due upon termination of employment and within the period due. The third putative class is proposed to be all current or former employees employed by us in the United States in non-exempt positions at any time during the period beginning May 30, 2011 to the present, or the "Nationwide Class." With respect to the Nationwide Class, the lawsuit alleges we willfully failed to pay overtime compensation required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. "In June 2015, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiff, subject to the limitation that the interests of the Nationwide Class would not be mediated except to the extent members of the Nationwide Class worked in California during the applicable period, and the plaintiff agreed. The mediator proposed the parties settle the lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $1.4 million, on a claims-made basis with a floor of 60% payout net of attorney fees, administrative fees and enhancements. "In July 2015, we indicated our non-binding agreement to the mediator's proposal, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement. The plaintiff also indicated its agreement to the mediator's proposal. Therefore, this amount was accrued in June 2015. "In May 2016, we and the plaintiff entered into a Stipulation for Settlement and Release of Class Action Claims, which Stipulation received preliminary court approval on July 25, 2016. "We anticipate notice of the agreed Stipulation will be issued in September 2016 after which a forty-five day claim period will commence. The final approval hearing has been set in November 2016. "Should the parties fail to receive final court approval, which is unanticipated, we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves." PERFORMANCE FOOD: Motion to Dismiss "Perez" Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the case, Perez v. Performance Food Group, Inc., et al., remains pending. The Company said, "In April 2015, a former employee of our Performance Foodservice -- Southern California distribution center filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Alameda County, California Superior Court against us. We removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In June 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all hourly employees in California (excluding drivers) in our Performance Foodservice and Vistar segments that we failed to provide second meal periods and to pay compensation for such meal periods. The lawsuit further alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all employees in California (excluding drivers) who earned non- discretionary compensation that we failed to pay all overtime wages due, and to pay all premium wages for missed meal periods, by failing to include all compensation required in the regular rate of pay calculation, and failed to pay wages for all time worked. The lawsuit further alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all employees in California (excluding drivers) that we failed to pay out vested vacation time in the form of paid holidays. The lawsuit further alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all employees described above that we (1) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (2) failed to pay all compensation due upon termination of employment and within the period due; and (3) engaged in unfair trade practices." "Each of the proposed classes for the preceding claims are for the time period from April 20, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit further alleges on behalf of all of our hourly employees in the United States (excluding drivers) in non-exempt positions, that we failed to pay appropriate overtime compensation pursuant to our compensation policy, and to keep records required under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for the period from April 20, 2012 to the present. "Finally, the lawsuit alleges plaintiff is entitled to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act. The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) unpaid wages; (2) actual damages; (3) liquidated damages; (4) restitution; (5) declaratory relief; (6) statutory penalties; (7) civil penalties; and (8) attorneys' fees, interest and costs. In July 2015, we filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Complaint. "In March 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss all claims except for the claim alleging we failed to provide accurate wage statements. The court gave the plaintiff 21 days to amend his complaint. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 13, 2016. The plaintiff's claims in the second amended complaint include substantially the same claims and allegations as the original lawsuit. We filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Second Amended Complaint on May 11, 2016. The court has not yet ruled on the motion." PERFORMANCE FOOD: Paid $3.75MM Settlement Fund in "Contreras" ------------------------------------------------------------- Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that the Company has paid the settlement fund of $3,750,000 in the case, Contreras v. Performance Food Group, Inc., et al. The Company said, "In June 2014, a former employee of our Roma of Southern California distribution center filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Alameda County, California Superior Court against us. The putative class is proposed to be all drivers employed in any of our California locations in our Performance Foodservice and Vistar segments at any time during the period beginning June 17, 2010 to the present." "In August 2014, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The lawsuit alleges that we engaged in unfair trade practices and that we, with respect to the putative class, failed to (1) provide timely offduty meal and rest breaks and to pay compensation for such breaks as required by California law, (2) pay compensation for all hours worked and to pay a minimum wage for such hours, (3) provide accurate itemized wage statements, (4) pay all compensation within the period due at the time of termination of employment, and (5) pay compensation in timely fashion. The lawsuit further alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to penalties and attorney fees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act and that failure to provide meal and rest breaks and to pay a minimum wage for all hours worked constitute unfair business practices. "In June 2015, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiff. The mediator proposed the parties settle the lawsuit on the basis of a fully paid settlement fund of $3,750,000. In July 2015, the parties agreed to the mediator's proposal, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement. Therefore, this amount was accrued in June 2015. The parties executed a settlement agreement which received final approval on May 4, 2016. We paid out the settlement fund on June 17, 2016, which fully resolved the lawsuit." PERFORMANCE FOOD: Settled Vengris's Individual Claim ---------------------------------------------------- Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2016, that the Company has reached a preliminary agreement to settle his individual claims for an immaterial amount in the case, Vengris v. Performance Food Group, Inc. The Company said, "In May 2015, an employee of our Performance Foodservice Northern California distribution center filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Alameda County, California Superior Court against us. In July 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The putative class is proposed to be all current and former drivers employed in any of our, our subsidiaries' or affiliated companies' California locations since May 2, 2011. The lawsuit alleges that we (1) engaged in wage theft or time shaving by auto-deducting thirty minutes from class members' work days even if the class members worked during some or all of such meal periods; (2) failed to pay class members for all time worked when class members worked during first or second meal periods; (3) failed to pay premium wages to class members for missed meal periods; (4) failed to provide class members the opportunity to take rest breaks of 10 minutes every four hours and failed to pay premium wage for such missed rest breaks; (5) provided inaccurate wage statements to the class members by failing to account for all hours worked; (6) failed to pay all compensation within the period due at the time of termination of employment; and (7) engaged in unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices by failing to itemize and keep accurate time records and by failing to pay the class members in a lawful manner." "The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) compensatory, economic and special damages, with interest; (2) unpaid wages, with interest; (3) premium wages for non-compliant meal periods and rest breaks; (4) restitution for engaging in unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive business practices related to time records and failure to pay the class members in a lawful manner; (5) waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages owed to class members who are former employees; (6) damages, monies owed, and/or restitution for failing to provide accurate wage statements; (7) injunctive relief barring the alleged violations; and (8) attorneys' fees, interest and costs. "In July 2015, we filed a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Complaint. The court transferred the case to the judge presiding in the Contreras litigation, terminated the motion to dismiss without prejudice and ruled that we will be able to refile the motion, if necessary, in the future. "We have reached a preliminary agreement with Mr. Vengris to settle his individual claims for an immaterial amount. Should a final settlement agreement not be reached, we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves." PURE STORAGE: Faces "Ramsay" Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- Pure Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a purported securities class action entitled Ramsay v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on September 1, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Mateo County) against the Company and certain of its officers, directors, investors and underwriters. The Company said, "The complaint asserts claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. section 77 related to alleged inaccuracies, omissions, misstatements or misrepresentations in our registration statement filed in connection with our initial public offering. While we have not yet responded to the complaint, we believe there is no merit to the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously." RELIABLE CLEAN-UP: Faces "Lopez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO LOPEZ and JULIO HUESCA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. RELIABLE CLEAN-UP AND SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, RELIABLE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, DANIEL SANTOS, and LUCIANO SANTOS Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02595-D (N.D. Tex., September 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid "off the clock" hours worked and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate construction and construction cleaning businesses that specializes in residential and commercial remodeling and renovations and make-ready construction cleaning. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gonzalo Serrano, Esq. Michael O'keefe Cowles, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 1801 N. Lamar, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (469) 203-2150 Fax: (469) 629-5045 E-mail: gserrano@equaljusticecenter.org mcowles@equaljusticecenter.org RESTORATION HARDWARE: Court Has Not Issued Final Order on Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------------ Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that in the case, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, the Company has provided an accounting of satisfaction of judgment to the Court and the Court has not issued its final order. On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to other matters related to this proceeding. On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. As a result of the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January 10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but the judgment is enforceable. As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated class member response. On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims administrator, began mailing the class action award to class members. The Company, through the third party claims administrator, paid approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to the class members and mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one year, on purchases up to $10,000, to class members that did not request the cash award. During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the Court provided additional guidance regarding the manner in which class members can use the 33% merchandise discount coupon. Specifically, the court ordered that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other promotional offers. The coupons expired on March 16, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Company provided an accounting of satisfaction of judgment to the Court and the Court has not issued its final order. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SAHARA BEACH: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RAIDEL RAMIREZ RODRIGUEZ and WILBER PEREZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. SAHARA BEACH CLUB MOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and DEZER GIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23848-CMA (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sahara Beach Club Motel Condominium Assoc. is a civic and social association located in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: S7 Phones Not Water-Resistant, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Samsung Electronics' Galaxy S7 cellphones are not water-resistant, as advertised, a class action claims in Riverside, Calif. Federal Court. SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Broiler Chicken Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, that Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division) and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division) were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed on September 2, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of broiler chickens by coordinating and limiting their production capacity. The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants fraudulently concealed such anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit is in its earliest stage and we intend to defend it vigorously. SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss class action lawsuit in New York remains pending. A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers (the President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of Finance and Treasurer). As amended, the lawsuit claims in part that the Company issued inaccurate information to investors about, among other things, the Company's earnings and income and its internal controls over financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and the first and second fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between January 12, 2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive. The Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 18, 2016. SHIRE PLC: Final Decision in ELAPRASE Suit Expected in 18 Months ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shire plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, that a final decision is expected within the next 18 months in the lawsuit related to supply of ELAPRASE to certain patients in Brazil. On September 24, 2014 Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these claims. On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and dismissed all the claims under the class action, which decision has been appealed. A final decision is expected within the next 18 months. SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,094 Employees Join Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that 10,094 current and former employees have submitted consent forms to opt in to a collective action. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the Southern District's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI's Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI's Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants' opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The parties await a ruling on the motion. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. At this time, 10,094 current and former employees have submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action. SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Defends Lawsuit by EOCC ---------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a lawsuit by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non- monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016. The EEOC filed their brief in response on August 1, 2016 and Sterling's reply was filed on August 15, 2016. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against Zale Litigation -------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend its position in the litigation against Zale Corporation. Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. On April 6, 2016, the Court conditionally certified an opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt and who worked in a Zale retail store in the United States at any time from July 3, 2010 to the present. Additionally, the court certified an opt-out class action of the remaining claims on behalf of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt, and worked in a Zale retail store in the State of California at any time from July 3, 2009 through the present. At this time, the class has not yet received notice of the ruling and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt out. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Dube" Shareholder Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that Susan Dube filed on August 25, 2016, a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, purportedly on behalf of stockholders that acquired the Company's securities between January 7, 2016, and June 3, 2016, inclusive (Dube v. Signet Jewelers Limited, et al., Civ. No. 16-6728 (S.D.N.Y.)). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and earnings by failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety of customer's jewelry while in Signet's custody for repairs, a drop-off in customer confidence, and increased competitive pressures. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, the Company's share price was artificially inflated. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that the allegations in this complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. SILICON GRAPHICS: Class Action Filed Over HPE Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------- Silicon Graphics International Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2016, that the Company faces litigation related to the Company's proposed acquisition by HPE. The Company said, "Subsequent to the Company's fiscal year end, on August 29, 2016, a stockholder class action complaint was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court on behalf of a putative class of SGI stockholders and naming as defendants SGI's Board of Directors, SGI, HPE, and Acquisition Sub: Kierkla v. SGI, as the result of the Company's signing a definitive agreement to be acquired by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE")." "The complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of SGI by HPE, the individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to SGI's stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of SGI to SGI's stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement. The complaints further allege that HPE, Acquisition Sub, and/or SGI aided and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, in the event that the proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages, an order directing defendants to account to the class for damages allegedly sustained, and attorneys' fees and costs. "The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and any directors and/or officers named in the lawsuit as defendants. SGI has not booked an accrual relating to any of these matters at this time, as amounts are not probable or estimable." SIMONIZ USA: Faces "Burgos" Suit Under FLSA, Conn. Min. Wage Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL BURGOS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SIMONIZ USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01528 (D. Conn., September 9, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalty damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, Connecticut General Statutes. Defendant manufactures and distributes car wax and similar products out of its locations in Bolton and Rocky Hill, Connecticut, and it performs auto detailing services at its West Harford, Connecticut location. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: (860) 522-8888 Fax: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Daniel S. Blinn, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Phone: (860) 571-0408 Fax: (860) 571-7457 E-mail: dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com SIRIUS XM: Faces Class Action Over Lifetime Subscriptions --------------------------------------------------------- Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that music fans who paid big bucks for lifetime subscriptions to Sirius XM Radio thinking they'd be listening to the satellite radio service on their deathbeds were wrong, a class action claims in Santa Ana, Calif., They've only got till their receivers die. "Defendant systematically advertised and sold its lifetime subscriptions to consumers by leading consumers to believe that such lifetime subscriptions were for the lifetime of the consumer," lead plaintiff Paul Wright says on September 12, class action in Federal Court. "However, when consumers have tried to transfer their lifetime subscriptions from one receiver to another or from one automobile to another, defendant has taken the position that the 'lifetime' referred to is not the lifetime of the purchasing consumer, but the lifetime of the receiver or automobile." Early purchasers of satellite radio "took a chance and paid large upfront lifetime subscription fees" to Sirius, with no guarantee that it would survive as a business, "but in the hope that if defendant did survive, their lifetime subscription purchases would pay off over time," Wright says in the complaint. Sirius XM Radio was formed in 2008 in a merger between competitors Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio. Although the new company verged upon bankruptcy a few times, today it has more than 24 million paid subscribers. Tens of thousands of them purchased lifetime subscriptions, the class action estimates. Wright says that Sirius XM's "refusal to honor the lifetime subscriptions has allowed it to reap millions of dollars in profits while individual consumers find they have spent hundreds of dollars for a lifetime subscription that is not as it was represented and not as expected." Wright bought a lifetime subscription in December 2006 for about $400. He got no service agreement or other written agreement about his lifetime subscription, he says. Wright says "understood 'lifetime' to be his lifetime, as is used in the ordinary course of business." He got "no verbal or written notice that the lifetime subscription was limited to the original device only" or was limited in any other way. Wright found out otherwise in January this year when his portable receiver, known as a Stiletto, gave out and he bought a replacement. He tried to transfer his lifetime subscription, but Sirius refused. Neither the company's director of corporate communications nor its general counsel could be reached late on September 13, for comment. However, an item on the Sirius XM website says that lifetime subscriptions purchased before June 20, 2005, can be transferred to new devices indefinitely. Those purchased between that date and Sept. 7, 2007, can be transferred three times. Ones bought after that date for use in a home or portable receiver can be transferred three times, for a fee. Those installed in a car radio cannot be transferred. Based on that policy, Wright should be able to move his subscription to a new receiver three times. The class action insists, however, that he was never told about any policy or limitation, but nonetheless was denied a transfer. His attorney, Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson, did not return a call about the case. Wright seeks class certification, restitution, an injunction and damages for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition, breach of express and implied contract, and consumer law violations. SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: "Williams" Sues Directors Over Pay Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- YVONNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. stockholders and derivatively on behalf of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiff, v. HENRY JI, WILLIAM S. MARTH, KIM D. JANDA, JAISIM SHAH, DAVID H. DEMING, DOUGLAS EBERSOLE, GEORGE NG, AND JEFFERY SU, Defendants, and SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant, 59534713 Case No. 12729- (Del. Ch., September 8, 2016), is a stockholders' suit over the Board of Directors' quid pro quo self-compensation scheme. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development, and commercialization of proprietary drug therapies for addressing significant unmet medical needs worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Christopher M. Foulds, Esq. Christopher P. Quinn, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-3500 - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. David Wales, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Francis Bottini Jr., Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: "de Leon" Suit Invokes FLSA, Fla. Wage Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Ponce de Leon, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. Southern Transport Group, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Leyda P. Escobar, individually, Defendant(s), Case 1:16-cv-23879-FAM (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Southern Transport Group Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami FL 33130 Phone: 305-416-5000 Fax: 305-416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com pn@rgpattorneys.com TAILORED BRANDS: Defending Against "Makhlouf" Action ---------------------------------------------------- Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the case by Peter Makhlouf. On March 29, 2016, Peter Makhlouf filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Douglas S. Ewert, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:16-cv-00838). The complaint attempts to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015. In particular, the complaint alleges that the Company and its CEO made certain statements about the Company's acquisition and subsequent integration of Jos. A. Bank that were false and misleading and omitted material facts. "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. TAILORED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss "Lucas" Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the motion to dismiss the lawsuit by David Lucas and Eric Salerno is still pending before the Court. On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and attorney fees. Mr. Salerno subsequently withdrew from the case leaving Mr. Lucas as the sole named plaintiff. In July 2016 several key events occurred. Over the course of several days, the Plaintiff's counsel withdrew the plaintiff's motion for class certification, filed a motion to dismiss the case, with prejudice, and filed a motion to withdraw as counsel to Mr. Lucas. The Court granted plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw. The motion to dismiss is still pending before the Court. "As a result, this case will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and we will no longer be reporting on this matter in subsequent filings," the Company said. TILLY'S INC: Appeal in "Christiansen" Class Action Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Kirstin Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-139010. On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card and recording such information, subject to exceptions. The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In June 2013, the court granted our motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The parties completed class certification discovery and briefing, and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015. On September 17, 2015, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification. On or around November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The deadline for plaintiffs to file their opening brief had been extended until September 9, 2016 and no opening brief has been filed yet. "We intend to defend this case vigorously," the Company said. TILLY'S INC: Nov. 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Rebolledo" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a final approval hearing is scheduled with the court on November 4, 2016, in the case Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE- CXC. The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013, to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004." "In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014, we filed an answer to the amended complaint. The parties attended a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution that will be presented to the court for approval. A final approval hearing is scheduled with the court on November 4, 2016." TILLY'S INC: Settlement Reached in "Whitten" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the parties reached a resolution that will be presented to the court for preliminary approval on September 13, 2016, in the case, Karina Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 548252. The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a putative class action and representative Private Attorney General Act of 2004 lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 3, 2014, dismissing an expense reimbursement claim." "We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015, denying all allegations, after which the case was stayed pending mediation. We engaged in mediation in May 2016, and the parties reached a resolution that will be presented to the court for preliminary approval on September 13, 2016." TILLY'S INC: Hearing Date on Demurrer Set for October 19 -------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the hearing date on the Company's demurrer in the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, is set for October 19, 2016. The Company said, "On September 1, 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law. Specifically, the complaint asserts a violation of the applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims. The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. We are defending this case vigorously." "On June 21, 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's. Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting- time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. At the hearing on the plaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2016, which brought the same claims as her original complaint but added various factual allegations. "On August 5, 2016, we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff's amended complaint still failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's, for the same reasons that the court granted our demurrer as to the plaintiff's original complaint. The hearing date on our demurrer is currently set for October 19, 2016, as is the next status conference. "On August 30, 2016, however, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to continue the hearing and status conference date to October 26, 2016. The plaintiff filed her opposition on August 24, 2016. Per the parties' stipulation, our reply is due October 12, 2016." TRS RECOVERY: Faces "Grind" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE GRIND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1-10, AND EACH OF THEM, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-06783 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2016), alleges willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. TRS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. is a company involved in consumer debt buying and recovery/collection. 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 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Lawyer Wants Case Trial Delayed ------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that despite knowing months ago he may have a scheduling conflict, Donald Trump's attorney waited until late on September 12, to request to push back the November trial date for the first Trump University class action case to get its day in court. Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli asked U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to push back the post-election trial date in Low v. Trump University currently set for Nov. 28 to either Dec. 12 or Jan. 2, 2017. Lead plaintiff Sonny Low and others sued Donald Trump and Trump University in 2010 -- long before Trump announced his bid for president -- on claims they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 to learn insider real estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. In September 12 filing, Petrocelli cited a conflict as he is also slated to begin trial in a class action against satellite radio giant Sirius XM on Nov. 15. That trial is expected to last seven court days. Petrocelli says he asked the judge presiding over Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio to continue that trial to make way for the Trump University case but U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez denied his request. If the Sirius trial lasted the estimated seven days, that means Petrocelli would finish that trial on Nov. 23 -- the day before Thanksgiving -- only to start the Trump University trial the Monday after the holiday. Petrocelli never mentioned the Sirius trial date -- which was set nine months ago -- because "it did not immediately come to mind, nor was it at the time clear that an actual conflict would materialize," according to his filing. He did not bring up the scheduling conflict until a hearing on Aug. 26 -- three months before the Low trial was set to begin. Trump's attorney said he would be prejudiced if the Low trial date is not pushed back, as he won't be able to prepare and conduct pretrial work in the days leading up to the November trial. A hearing on jury instructions for the Low case has also been set for Nov. 18 -- right in the middle of Petrocelli's Sirius trial. He also pointed out the Sirius trial could likely extend beyond the seven-day estimate -- especially in light of the Thanksgiving holiday -- meaning the two trials could very well butt into each other. "Granting this request would resolve the existing conflict while respecting the court's preference that trial occur between the election and inauguration (if Mr. Trump were to be elected), and would cause no prejudice to plaintiffs," Petrocelli wrote. Trump retained Petrocelli -- his fourth attorney in the case -- last November. Earlier this summer, Petrocelli asked Curiel to schedule the trial for after the presidential election on Nov. 8. Low and the other plaintiffs wanted the trial to be held sometime this summer. Petrocelli then proposed a February 2017 trial date, after the presidential inauguration. Curiel denied that request, saying the trial needed to be held between the election and inauguration. Trump's attorney called his continuance request "modest," noting the case has been pending for six years and he's asking for a delay of no more than 35 days and as few as 14 days. If his request is granted, the trial would still take place before the presidential inauguration per Curiel's order, Petrocelli added. The plaintiffs' lead attorney Jason Forge filed a notice with the court on September 12, indicating his clients will file a formal opposition to Petrocelli's request on or before Sept. 14. The case is captioned, SONNY LOW et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., Defendants., Case No. 10-CV-0940-GPC (WVG)(S.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs Object to Postponement of Trial Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that former Trump University students chastised Donald Trump and his attorney on September 14, saying Trump "can't be trusted" to proceed and the "convenience" of one attorney should not postpone the 6-1/2-year-old case from having its day in court. On September 12, Daniel Petrocelli -- Trump's fourth attorney in the Low v. Trump University case -- asked U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to move the Nov. 28 trial date to either Dec. 12 or Jan. 2, 2017. Petrocelli cited a conflicting trial in another California court just days before the first Trump University trial is set to begin. Lead plaintiff Sonny Low and other former Trump University students sued Trump in 2010 on claims that they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 to learn insider real estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. They are represented by attorney Jason Forge. On September 14, the plaintiffs called Petrocelli's request "untimely and unjustified," noting the lawyer's conflicting trial date in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio was set nine months ago and the trial date for the Low case was set four months ago. Petrocelli never brought up the scheduling conflict until a court hearing held late last month. The class wants Curiel to deny Trump's delay request and move up the jury selection proceedings. At a scheduling hearing this past May, Low and the other plaintiff's requested a summer trial date -- which Trump vehemently opposed. Petrocelli suggested a post-inauguration trial date of for February 2017 which Curiel denied, saying the trial needed to be held between election and Inauguration Day, should Trump be elected president. Petrocelli works for O'Melveny & Meyers out of Los Angeles. The law firm -- which employs about 700 lawyers -- became the fourth to represent Trump in the older of two class actions against his now-defunct Trump University being litigated in San Diego. Low and the others pointed out that from last November -- when Petrocelli was retained by Trump -- and the present, Curiel has accommodated multiple requests by Trump to move potential trial dates around his campaign schedule. They also say Petrocelli had at least four opportunities between January and August to inform Curiel of the conflict. Pushing the trial date back could "risk an indefinite delay and guarantee significant personal and professional hardship for everyone who took Trump at his word," Low and the others claim. Offering a potential explanation on why Petrocelli never mentioned the scheduling conflict, Low and the others say he was simply following Trump's marching orders to avoid a pre-election trial at all costs. "Defense counsel was following orders to avoid at all costs a pre- election trial, and he realized that raising a potential conflict with the November 28 trial date would have likely led the court to give stronger consideration to its originally planned August trial (as plaintiffs were still urging), or perhaps September or October," the class says. Despite knowing about the conflict, Trump's attorneys repeatedly relied on the "proximate" November trial date when arguing against making videotapes of his deposition publicly available. This points to his attorneys' radio silence as a "tactical decision" that "should not be rewarded by this court," the plaintiffs claim. But despite all the lambasting, the plaintiffs still brainstorm ways to ensure the Trump University trial can begin Nov. 28 -- with Petrocelli at both of his engagements. They urged Curiel to begin jury selection on Oct. 31 to provide a two-day "cushion" at the front-end of the Low trial and avoid the possibility of Petrocelli's Sirius trial butting into their case. Far from an olive branch, however, the class also questioned Petrocelli's importance to Trump's case. "With all due respect to defense counsel, he was not Trump's first, second, or third choice to represent him in this case, so it cannot be credibly asserted that he is somehow indispensable." Curiel has repeatedly said it is important to get the Low case -- one of his oldest, if not the oldest, cases on his docket -- to trial, especially since it includes financial elder abuse claims. Low and the others say that means "it's only fair" for Trump and Petrocelli to bear the risk of any inconvenience. But the class mostly fears another delay will mean that their case never gets its day in court. Since Trump has no political experience he will need extra time to get the hang of running the nation and may try to postpone the trial indefinitely if elected, they say. "As the situation demonstrates, Trump cannot be trusted to refrain from making and breaking any promises to proceed to trial on any given date," the plaintiffs say. "And the later the request, the more likely it is to be granted -- if not by this court, then by a reviewing court. After all, Trump has no political experience, and if he is elected president, each day closer he gets to inauguration would only strengthen an argument that he needs to dedicate more time to figuring out how to run our country." The Low case is set to go to trial Nov. 28. A hearing on Trump's delay request has not yet been set. The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants., No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG) (S.D Cal.) TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Say Opt-Outs Can't Testify ------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that former Trump University students suing Donald Trump want to prevent the Republican presidential candidate from cherry-picking positive testimony from a handful of students who opted out of the looming 7,500-member class action in San Diego. In an opposition filed on September 9, Sonny Low and the other lead plaintiffs in Low v. Trump University claim that long before their 2010 class action case was even certified, Trump "aggressively sought out 'satisfied' former students nationwide" who'd be willing to testify about their positive Trump University experience. Low and the others sued Trump long before he announced his bid for president, claiming they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 based on the promise that they'd learn insider real estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. In the September 9 filing, the students claim Trump launched an "unprecedented, nationwide multimedia campaign" that touted Trump University and condemned its detractors in the hopes of finding willing students to testify on the school's behalf if the time came. The plaintiffs want the students who opted out of the class action to be barred from testifying during the first phase of the trial. Out of 7,611 former students in Low and the related, Cohen v. Trump case, only 13 opted out of the class actions, the students say. If Trump wants to call as witnesses eight of the opt-out students -- whom he has identified -- the plaintiffs say they would have to call 600 former students per opt-out student for the testimony to be a fair ratio. "Defendants seek to parade a few needles before the jury -- and destroy the class action status of this case in the process -- by forcing plaintiffs to present the entire haystack so the jury is not misled," the filing read. Interestingly, one of the eight students Trump wants to call as a witness is former lead plaintiff in the case, Tarla Makaeff. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel allowed Makaeff to withdraw as lead plaintiff earlier this year when she claimed testifying during the trial would conflict with her new job and cause her emotional distress. Since Makaeff's withdrawal, Trump has made a big issue of changes he said the class has made at the last minute, even asking to decertify the class. That motion was denied last month. Trump hopes the testimony of opt-out students like Marla Rains Colic will illustrate that not all students believed Trump University was accredited or that Trump was personally involved in the day-to-day management of the school, including "handpicking" instructors. The plaintiffs claim the testimony of absent class members is irrelevant to the common liability issues certified by the court. They say the students Trump wants to call to testify account for less than 0.002 percent of all live-event students, and that there's no way they could speak for the entire class. "There are always anomalies due to quirky perspectives, dumb luck or any number of other reasons. That is why a small number of witnesses is extremely telling, given Trump's aggressive multimedia campaign to enlist students as his shields. The fact that defendants only found a few willing candidates, despite Trump's celebrity and power, only bolsters plaintiffs' point that these are outliers," the plaintiffs say in the opposition. Hundreds of students have contacted the plaintiffs' attorneys, and in the past two weeks alone, 50 "student-victims" signed declarations in support of the class, according to the filing. "These facts bring into sharp focus why a few outliers simply cannot meet the threshold test for relevance in defendants' own case that is 'properly generalized to the class as a whole,'" the class says. Since the Low case is about Trump's "misconduct in a misleading marketing scheme" and not that of Trump University students, testimony from absent class members is inappropriate, according to the plaintiffs. But Trump argues the absent class members should be allowed to testify due to his assertion that all individual class members must prove they were exposed to the same marketing misrepresentations as to the "accreditation" and "handpicked" claims. The plaintiffs called Trump's argument a "phantom issue, and say after the first phase of trial Trump will be able to present proof against specific students. Testimony by absent class members should also be excluded because of its high potential for "unfair prejudice, confusion of issues and misleading the jury," the plaintiffs claim. The lead plaintiffs were vetted by the court and found to have claims "typical to that of the proposed class members." Allowing the absent class members to testify would give unfair weight to only a handful of former students in a sea of class members who say they were cheated of thousands, the plaintiffs say. "To allow nonclass members who were not scrutinized by the court to effectively speak on behalf of the class would undermine the representative action and create a false parity between typical students and atypical ones," the students claim. If testimony from students "culled by defendants to present a curated viewpoint" was allowed, it would leave jurors with a "misleading impression that the margins represent the other side of the middle" and would significantly lengthen the first phase of the trial, according to the plaintiffs. The Low v. Trump University trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 28. The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants., No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)(S.D. Cal.) VALSPAR CORPORATION: "Mitsopoulos" Lawsuit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- The Valspar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the plaintiff in Mitsopoulos v. Valspar has dismissed the lawsuit. On March 19, 2016, Valspar entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with The Sherwin-Williams Company ("Sherwin-Williams") and Viking Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sherwin-Williams ("Merger Sub"). On May 24, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger was filed that named Valspar and its board of directors as defendants. The complaint, captioned Mitsopoulos v. Valspar (Case No. 12373), was filed on May 24, 2016 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported stockholder of Valspar. The lawsuit sought to enjoin the transaction and alleged, among other things, that the members of the Valspar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information relating to the transaction, including with respect to the financial analyses of Valspar's financial advisors and financial projections prepared by Valspar management. On June 16, 2016, Valspar filed a Current Report on Form 8-K disclosing certain additional information relating to the proposed Merger in response to allegations made in the above lawsuit. In filing the Form 8-K, Valspar denied the allegations of the lawsuit and the need for any supplemental disclosure, and stated it believed the definitive proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger disclosed all material information. However, Valspar disclosed the additional information solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense and burden of litigation. The plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit on June 22, 2016. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: ISA Submits Position Paper on Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA") has submitted a position paper supporting the Company's position regarding applicable law in the Israel securities class actions. On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The complaint sought compensation for damages allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the U.S., on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 25, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 21, 2009. The Israeli District Court stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 24, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending before the court and requesting that this authority be added to the court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action. On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. The Company said, "On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S." On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., unless an individual plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S. court, on May 1, 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the applicable law. "A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On July 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on August 21, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading on September 4, 2014. On April 2, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli class action is estopped by the U.S. class action settlement and dismissed the case. "On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint was filed against us in Israel alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli class action, and alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S. class action settlement proceedings. We are opposing the new class action and plaintiff's class certification motion on substantially the same grounds on which the previous case was dismissed. The court held a pretrial hearing on that motion on May 19, 2016 at which it requested additional information including expert reports, a position paper from the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA"), and further briefing scheduled through September 25, 2016. In July 2016, the ISA submitted a position paper supporting our position regarding applicable law. "On June 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the 2008 Israel Securities Class Action filed a motion for award of compensation and attorneys' fees based on the amount of settlement compensation received by Israelis in the U.S. class action. On January 14, 2016, the Israeli District Court denied this motion. Plaintiff has not timely appealed, and that ruling is now final." VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the opening appeal brief in the appeal in the case, In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, is due on September 19, 2016. The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us, certain of our former officers and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13- 1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business, operations, and financial controls during the putative class period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013. "On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. "On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer who was named in the original complaint from the action. "We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on October 7, 2014. "On March 29, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding it insufficiently pled, and granted leave to amend by June 3, 2016. Instead of filing a third amended complaint, lead plaintiffs stipulated to a judgment of dismissal with prejudice so they could appeal the court's dismissal of their second amended complaint, which judgment the court entered on June 6, 2016. "On June 9, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The opening appeal brief is due on September 19, 2016 and the reply is due on November 2, 2016. An appeal hearing has not yet been scheduled." VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Denied Motion to Certify Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a district court has denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a lawsuit as a class action. The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages." "On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). "In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer. "On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of its former subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014. "Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in us. On September 9, 2015, Comverse changed its name to Xura, Inc. ("Xura"), and on August 19, 2016, Xura was taken private by affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC. "On February 4, 2013, we merged with CTI. As a result of the merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse (now Xura) for any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. "Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding before the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the District Court (i) denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now Xura) or VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises as a result of its previous extended filing delay period. The court also ruled that the merits of the case and any calculation of damages would be evaluated under New York law. The plaintiffs have 45 days from September 6, 2016 to appeal the portions of the plaintiffs' motion denied by the court." VOYA FINANCIAL: Nestle 401(k) Savings Planholders File Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA PATRICO, On Behalf of The Nestle 401(K) Savings Plan and All Other Similarly Situated Individual Account Plans Plaintiff, v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., VOYA INSTITUTIONAL PLAN SERVICES, LLC; VOYA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; and VOYA RETIREMENT ADVISORS, LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07070 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2016), was filed on behalf of the Nestle 401(k) Savings Plan and all other similarly situated qualified retirement plans, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC. is an American financial, retirement, investment and insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nestico, Esq. Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: (480) 315-3841 Fax: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd Schneider, Esq. Mark Johnson, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net scarson@bm.net enoteware@bm.net WAL-MART STORES: Paid $242MM Judgment in Wage-And-Hour Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company has paid approximately $242 million for the judgment amount and post- judgment interest owed to the class in the wage-and-hour class action. The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks. On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off- the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal. On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On June 10, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals issued an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys' fees. On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. On December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the Superior Court of Appeals' decision. At that time, the Company recorded expenses of $249 million for the judgment amount and post-judgment interest incurred to date. The Company continued to accrue for the post-judgment interest until it made the payment. On March 13, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari and the case has been returned to the trial court. On June 15, 2016, the Company paid approximately $242 million for the judgment amount and post-judgment interest owed to the class. A dispute remains regarding the appropriate amount of attorney's fees to be paid by the Company. The Company believes that an adverse decision regarding, or settlement of, the attorney's fee issue will not have a material impact on its financial condition or results of operations. WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Equal Value Claims Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend the ASDA Equal Value Claims. ASDA Stores, Ltd. ("ASDA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant in over 7,000 "equal value" claims that are proceeding before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the "Employment Tribunal") in the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of current and former ASDA store employees, who allege that the work performed by female employees in ASDA's retail stores is of equal value in terms of, among other things, the demands of their jobs to that of male employees working in ASDA's warehouse and distribution facilities, and that the disparity in pay between these different job positions is not objectively justified. Claimants are requesting differential back pay based on higher wage rates in the warehouse and distribution facilities and those higher wage rates on a prospective basis as part of these equal value proceedings. ASDA believes that further claims may be asserted in the near future. On March 23, 2015, ASDA asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all proceedings and to "strike out" substantially all of the claims. On July 23, 2015, the Employment Tribunal denied ASDA's requests. Following additional proceedings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed to review the "strike out" issue and the Court of Appeals agreed to review the stay issue. On May 26, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied ASDA's appeal of the stay issue. At present, the Company cannot predict the number of such claims that may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously. WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Challenged ---------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the Altman class action has been denied. Judge Steve C. Jones held that "After de novo review, the magistrate's R&R is hereby REJECTED. Plaintiff's objections are hereby SUSTAINED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority is hereby DEEMED MOOT as the Court was able to find post-Spokeo authority in its own independent research. Action referred back to Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas for further action." Following that Ruling, White House Black Market, Inc. filed a motion asking the district court to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Plaintiff has filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion. In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not appropriate for class treatment. It intends to vigorously defend the matter. At this time however, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is still in the early stages and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. Bryant T. Lamer, Esq. -- blamer@spencerfane.com -- at Spencer Fane Britt & Browne; and Shimshon E. Wexler, Esq., at Shimshon Wexler, Attorney At Law. White House Black Market, Inc. is represented by Barry Goheen -- bgoheen@kslaw.com -- Ian Edward Smith, John Anthony Love -- tlove@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP. WILLIS LTD: Faces Suit by Stanford Claimants -------------------------------------------- David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that people with $135 million in claims from R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme sued British insurance broker Willis Ltd., claiming it aided and abetted the fraud by issuing false "safety and security" letters. Lead plaintiff Edna Abel and 274 other individuals or couples hold more than $135 million in claims approved by court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey. Stanford, 65, was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in federal prison for 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud. Abel et al. sued Willis of Colorado Inc., WGH Holdings Ltd., and Willis Ltd. on September 12, in Dallas Federal Court. They claim they and their financial advisers were "all influenced" by Willis's conspiring in the scheme, in which they bought Stanford's phony certificates of deposit. "For many of these plaintiffs, their Stanford investments represented significant portions of their life savings," the complaint states. "These letters provide assurances to potential purchasers of CDs that, among other things, Stanford Financial had passed stringent risk management review by outside auditors." The plaintiffs say Stanford Investment Bank bought insurance policies from Willis, then obtained the "comfort" letters to market the CDs. "Willis' comfort letters intentionally created the false perception that SIB carried multiple insurance policies designed to ensure that investments in SIB CDs were as safe and secure as investments in CDs issued by banks insured by the FDIC," the complaint states. "They also claimed that Stanford Financial had undergone a stringent risk management review when, in fact, it had not. The letters were delivered to unwitting SGC [Stanford Group Company] financial advisors to use as marketing tools." The said Willis was the insurance broker for SIB and that the insurer found "them to be first class business people," according to the complaint. "The defendants had no reasonable basis to make the statements contained in the letters because they knew, or should have known, that SIB did not undergo 'stringent' annual Risk Management reviews, and that any reviews were not conducted by an outside audit firm, but rather were conducted by 'one man' audit shop in Antigua that was dominated by Allen Stanford and Stanford Financial," the complaint states. "In the context of these letters, there is no conceivable reason that Willis and Stanford Financial would supply financial advisors and investors with information about run-of-the-mill insurance policies that provided no benefit to investors." The plaintiffs are opting out of a proposed federal class action filed in July 2009 against Willis. Willis did not immediately respond to an email message requesting comment on September 12 evening. The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, aiding, abetting, conspiracy and violations of the Texas Securities Act and Texas Insurance Code. They are represented by Michael J. Stanley with Stanley Frank in Houston. ZAIS FINANCIAL: Faces Merger Class Action in Maryland Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Zais Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, that a class action lawsuit has been filed related to the proposed merger of Sutherland Asset Management Corporation, a Maryland corporation, with a wholly owned subsidiary of ZFC pursuant to the terms of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 6, 2016, as amended as of May 9, 2016 and August 4, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, ZAIS Financial Partners, L.P., ZAIS Merger Sub, LLC, Sutherland and Sutherland Partners, L.P. On August 24, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Sean Dexter, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ZAIS Financial Corp., et al. (the "Complaint"), was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, Maryland against the Company, its directors, Sutherland and Sutherland Partners, L.P., alleging that the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in certain respects regarding the Sutherland Merger and that the Sutherland parties aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The Complaint seeks various forms of relief, including to preliminarily and/or permanently enjoin the consummation of the proposed Sutherland Merger unless the defendants disclose certain information alleged to be material and to have been omitted from the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-211251) filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and an award of plaintiff's fees and expenses in connection with this litigation. On August 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the proposed vote of Company shareholders on the proposed issuance of shares in connection with the Sutherland Merger. Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on the Company or the Mergers. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Dropped as Defendant in "Floyd" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order dismissing without prejudice the case captioned Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff v. Asbestos Corporation, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05382-JST (N.D. Calif.), as to Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, which was erroneously sued as Foster Wheeler Usa Corporation. A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's Order dated September 13, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/9NYMDl from Leagle.com. Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Michael Fishback, Esq. -- sfishback@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP. Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Cassiana Aaronson, Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP, Daniel Lee Keller, Esq. -- dkeller@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP & John Bruce Jackson, Esq. -- bjackson@kfjlegal.com -- Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP. BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Esq. -- dyoung@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Esq. -- asandoval@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Holly Elizabeth Acevedo, Esq. -- hacevedo@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Keith Michael Ameele, Esq. -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Christian Jackson, Esq. -- Michelle.Jackson@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Esq. -- gsharp@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq. -- jmccormick@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Denise Fitzpatrick, Esq. -- jennifer.fitzpatrick@armstrongetal.com -- Armstrong & Associates, LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Esq. -- amy.talarico@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Scott Shaffer, Esq. -- SShaffer@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman, Esq. -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Esq. -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Esq. -- agalfayan@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq. -- ccrochet@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt, Esq. -- jmilbrodt@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz LLP. ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. -- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Esq. -- %20michael.eagan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Taylor Carl Day, Esq. -- %20taylor.day@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP. Metalclad Insulation LLC, Defendant, represented by Michelle Christian Jackson, Dentons US LLP. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Esq. -- mkannett@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Shahrad Milanfar, Esq. -- smilanfar@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynn Lanphear, Schiff Hardin LLP & Renee Christine Kelley, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Man Drops Asbestos Claims vs. Crown Cork ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge R. Bryan Harwell of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, granted the joint motion for dismissal without prejudice the asbestos claims filed by Jerry L. Matthews, Sr., against Defendant Crown, Cork & Seal Company USA, Inc. The case is JERRY L. MATTHEWS, SR., Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, C/A No. 4:16-cv-02934-RBH (D.S.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Harwell's Order dated September 15, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/GFbTMU from Leagle.com. Jerry L Matthews, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by William Christopher Swett, Motley Rice. Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Steven J. Pugh, Esq. -- spugh@richardsonplowden.com -- Richardson Plowden and Robinson & Joseph E. Thoensen, Esq. -- jthoensen@richardsonplowden.com -- Richardson Plowden and Robinson. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Hedderman Wall, Esq. -- Mark.Wall@WallTempleton.com -- Elmore and Wall & Peden Brown McLeod, Jr., Esq. -- Brown.McLeod@WallTempleton.com -- Elmore and Wall. Research-Cottrell Inc, Defendant, represented by David Michael Burkoff, Esq. -- dburkoff@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean Exley and Dunn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Man Ordered to Prosecute Suit vs. Pharmacia --------------------------------------------------------------- On June 9, 2016, Howard Milton Moore, et al., filed an action against multiple Defendants, including the Defendant Pharmacia LLC, individually and as successor to Monsanto Company. An Affidavit of Service filed by the Plaintiffs indicates that this particular Defendant was served on June 16, 2016. However, Pharmacia has not made an appearance or otherwise defended this action, and the Plaintiff appears to have made no effort to prosecute the action further against this Defendant. Accordingly, Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, ordered that the Plaintiffs must immediately file an appropriate motion or otherwise take further action with respect to Pharmacia LLC. The Plaintiffs are advised that failure to take further action will result in the dismissal of this Defendant. The case is HOWARD MILTON MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCATEL- LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv- 00157-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's Order dated September 14, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/in4M7a from Leagle.com. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A.. Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A.. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. Ericsson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent Alan Rosser, Esq. -- brosser@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, Wendy Cohen McGraw, Esq. -- wmcgraw@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice & Emma Claire Merritt, Esq. -- emerritt@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Couple Drops Claims vs. Air & Liquid ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order granting parties' dismissal without prejudice of all claims against Defendant Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., in case captioned STEPHEN WINDHAM and PAULA WINDHAM, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02340-TLN-DB (E.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's Order dated September 9, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/SbOHBB from Leagle.com. Stephen Windham, Plaintiff, represented by David Robert Donadio, Brayton & Purcell, LLP. Stephen Windham, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly Chu, Brayton Purcell. Paula Windham, Plaintiff, represented by David Robert Donadio, Brayton & Purcell, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Florida Tightens Reins Proving Causation --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reported that Florida joined a growing number of jurisdictions that reject the "any exposure" theory of proving causation. Variously known as the "cumulative exposure" or "each and every exposure" theory, it is based on a form of junk science that cannot meet the Daubert test for the admissibility of scientific evidence. According to proponents, the actual level of exposure that a claimant may have had to asbestos doesn't matter. Instead, a person's asbestos-related disease is caused by any exposure he or she may have had to an asbestos product that was above the background level naturally occurring in the environment. The "any exposure" theory can be difficult to challenge. With it, plaintiffs proceed without industrial hygienists and avoid any sort of an exposure assessment. Essentially, plaintiffs can rely on medical testimony that a disease is consistent with asbestos exposure, coupled with a bare-bones occupational history that the plaintiff performed work that is known to expose workers to any level of asbestos. Plaintiffs' experts opine that since no level of asbestos is known to be safe, any exposure is a substantial contributing cause of the disease. This approach can be applied to any disease, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer, since all may be caused by exposure to asbestos. The key to a successful defense is to challenge the expert opinions at the pretrial stage and preclude the jury from considering this "junk science." In Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2133a (September 14, 2016), that is exactly what the defendants did. Unfortunately, the trial judge allowed all of the plaintiff's experts to testify. Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and held that such opinions could not meet the rigors of the Daubert standard, which is used by most states and became effective in Florida in 2013. In short, Florida now requires that expert testimony be based on sufficient facts and be the product of reliable principles and methods, and that those principles and methods are applied reliably to the facts of the case. This threshold must be established to the satisfaction of the trial court before the jury may hear the expert opinions. Even though it is based on the federal standard, the Daubert standard is still fairly new in Florida, so there have not yet been many published opinions interpreting it. This decision comes out strongly in support of the trial court's gatekeeper function and requires the trial courts to critically examine the bases underlying any expert opinions. It is an important decision that should have ramifications far beyond causation in asbestos cases. It can be expected to affect the admissibility of all expert opinions in every type of case, but particularly in toxic tort cases. The trial court's decision on these issues will not be overturned unless it has abused its discretion. Even with this high standard, the appellate court found the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing the testimony of plaintiffs' four experts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Probe Puts Libby Program On Hold --------------------------------------------------------- Edward O'Brien, writing for MTPR.com, reported that funding for a Libby asbestos program is now on hold while the federal government investigates allegations of misspent grant money. Libby's Asbestos Resource Program helps residents manage asbestos if they plan to disturb soil on their property. It's funded by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Harrison: "We've been notified by the county that there have been some questions about consistencies with federal grant regulations. That's something our agency is currently evaluating." Earlier this year Lincoln County commissioners realized some EPA grant money was paying for legal services. An independent auditor hired by the county said that's not supposed to happen. County officials told the EPA about the problem, which triggered the evaluation. Agency spokeswoman Jennifer Harrison says the program can continue to operate, but: "It's the reimbursements that are going to be subject to the grant review." The county has already covered the costs of the legal fees. It's now waiting to hear back from the EPA about the exact dollar amount owed to that agency. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Cos. Not Liable for Take Home Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Fischer, writing for The Associated Press, reported that Arizona companies have no duty to protect family members from exposure to toxic materials their employees bring home on their work clothes, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. In the first ruling of its kind in Arizona, the judges rejected the contention of survivors of Ernest Quiroz that his father's employer, Reynolds Metal Co., should be held legally responsible for the son's mesothelioma, a form of cancer frequently associated with asbestos exposure, and eventual death. Appellate Judge Jon Thompson, writing for the unanimous court, acknowledged that some states have allowed lawsuits based on "take-home exposure." But Thompson said that's not the way Arizona laws are written. Court records show Quiroz lived in his father's house in Maricopa County from 1952 to 1966, during which time his father worked for Reynolds Metal. Quiroz moved to California in 1966 for a decade and then to Michigan until his death in 2014. In the lawsuit, survivors claim that Quiroz's father was exposed on numerous occasions to asbestos-containing products and machinery. That, the claim says, resulted in the release of respirable asbestos fibers which contaminated the employee's clothing, tools, car, body and general surroundings. Quiroz breathed these fibers as result of direct and indirect contact with those items, the survivors say. Attorneys for the family contend Reynolds, which has since merged with Alcoa and now operates under that name, had a duty to avoid creating hazardous conditions on its property that would cause injury to people off the property. But Thompson said that's not the law in Arizona. "A landowner owes invitees a duty to provide reasonably safe premises and reasonably safe means of ingress and egress," the judge wrote. He said that duty generally ends when a person leaves the property. Thompson said there is no claim that Quiroz was on the property of Reynolds or that any injury he suffered was the result of being on that property. The appellate judges rejected the claim that there are "reasonable expectations of the parties and society" to require Reynolds to be responsible for the effects of the asbestos at its Arizona operations on others, including family members. The appellate judges also openly worried about what kind of precedent it would set to make companies responsible for the injuries that were the result of second-hand exposure to their chemicals or toxic products. They said it could open the door for claims by people who came into contact with asbestos-tainted clothing in a taxicab, grocery store, dry cleaner, convenience store or laundromat. "Appellants offer no way to limit the duty they seek either to employees' family members or to asbestos exposure," Thompson wrote. "Absent these constraints, any company that made or used a potentially hazardous substance could be liable to anyone who ever came into contact with an employee who arguably could have carried said hazardous substance offsite," he continued. "Such a dramatic expansion of liability would not be compatible with public policy." Thompson also brushed aside court rulings from other states that have allowed lawsuits in cases of take-home exposure. He acknowledged the Tennessee Supreme Court found Alcoa owed a duty of care to an employee's daughter who contracted mesothelioma as a result of regular contact with her father's work clothes. But Thompson said the law in that state recognizes "a general duty to refrain from engaging in affirmative acts that a reasonable person should recognize as involving an unreasonable risk of causing an invasion of an interest of another, or acts which involve an unreasonable risk of harm to another." In Arizona, by contrast, the foreseeability of risk to another is legally irrelevant in these kind of cases. Ditto, he said, of similar rulings in New Jersey and elsewhere. Instead, Thompson said Arizona is more in line with rulings out of Georgia, New York and Michigan. Tuesday's court ruling makes no mention of whether Quiroz's father had any claim against Reynolds. The lead attorney in the lawsuit did not immediately return calls seeking comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair Woman Blames Cos. for Husband's Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a St. Clair County widow is suing dozens of companies, alleging their negligence led to the death of her husband from asbestos-related causes. Donna Washam, individually and as special administrator of the estate of Larry Washam, filed a lawsuit Aug. 30 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Armstrong International Inc., Armstrong Pumps Inc., Aurora Pump Co., Borg-Wagner Morse TEC LLC, et al, alleging negligence in breaching their duty to exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of employees working with the defendants' asbestos containing products. According to the complaint, on March 12, 2015, Larry Washam first became aware he had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease. The suit says his exposure to the defendants' products containing asbestos caused him to develop lung cancer, which ultimately led to his death Oct. 4, 2015. The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos in their products and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the safe methods of working with products containing asbestos. Donna Washam seeks trial by jury, judgment against each defendant for at least $50,000 which will fairly compensate for the decedent's injuries, and additional minimum of $50,000 for her compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages. She is represented by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-468 ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Ct. Ruling Did Not Bring Flood of Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord, reported that though a 2013 state Supreme Court decision might have worried employers that they'd be dragged into asbestos lawsuits over Workers' Compensation issues, asbestos attorneys say that it hasn't happened too often. In Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., the court said the state's Workers' Compensation Act, which provided the lone remedy for workplace injuries, could not be used to bar recovery claims when symptoms of an employee's asbestos-related disease did not manifest until after the law's 300-week exposure deadline. Asbestos-related illnesses have a long latency period, often not showing up until dozens of years after the initial exposure. Robert F. Daley, of Robert Peirce & Associates in Pittsburgh, joined the plaintiff's side when the case reached the Supreme Court. The case brought by the estate of John Tooey was consolidated with Spurgeon Landis' case. "It provides another avenue of relief for mesothelioma victims, in some instances, against defendants that are their former employers who may have been negligent," Daley said. Though, Daley added the ramifications of the decision have not necessarily been far-reaching. "It's not every case that has an employer defendant in it, and I haven't seen much beyond mesothelioma cases, or maybe lung cancer cases, so it's been limited to asbestos from what I've seen," Daley said. R. Scott Marshall, of the Nemeroff Law Firm in Dallas, concurred the number of cases with possible employer liability have been limited since that verdict. "I understand there have been additional lawsuits filed against the employer since the Tooey decision. I can't give you an estimate as to how many, but I don't think it has been a tremendous number," Marshall said. "I think it's due in large part to the fact there are so few mesothelioma cases that are diagnosed every year." It's not happening at all in states like Illinois, where the state Supreme Court there ruled in the opposite direction late last year in Folta v. Ferro Engineering. In Folta, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled a widow whose husband's asbestos-related illness manifested more than 40 years after his last exposure could not collect damages from the employer allegedly responsible for the exposure. Mark Behrens, a partner in the Washington, D.C. branch of Shook Hardy & Bacon and co-chair of the firm's Public Policy Group, described the decision in Folta as contrasting with that of Pennsylvania's decision in Tooey, despite the Illinois court being seen as a fairly liberal judiciary and not as pro-business as the Pennsylvania court was when the issue was decided. Behrens termed the results of these individual challenges as "a mixed bag" and said they differ on both a case-by-case and state- by-state basis. "It depends on how the state Workers' Comp laws are written. It may be that Workers' Comp does cover asbestos in some states," Behrens said. "The Tooey decision comes up because there is a statute that provided after a certain number of years, the worker would no longer be able to obtain Workers' Comp. You really would have to look to the state Workers' Comp laws." Behrens said he believes the Arkansas Supreme Court is currently deciding the issue there. "If Pennsylvania, for instance, had provided a remedy for asbestos, then you wouldn't have the Tooey decision," he said. "You wouldn't have people saying if only because of the time cut- off in the statute, that after a certain period of time, the workers were no longer able to obtain recovery in Workers' Comp, which then gave rise to the lawsuit to try to get out of that system." Behrens feels the trend of plaintiffs attorneys trying to establish a method to collect from employers is part of their long-running effort to find solvent defendants. Dozens of the companies frequently targeted by asbestos plaintiffs have created bankruptcy trusts that establish a protocol for paying out claims. Those who haven't established trusts are left to fight lawsuits in civil courts, where juries can reach multimillion-dollar verdicts. Behrens quoted prominent Mississippi plaintiffs attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who candidly termed modern asbestos litigation as "an endless search for a solvent bystander." He later served prison time after being charged with participating in judicial bribery schemes. "One of the trends in the last few years has been that in trying to identify solvent potential defendants, plaintiffs' lawyers are challenging the exclusive remedy provision of state (Workers' Compensation) laws to try to bring employers into the asbestos litigation," Behrens said. "The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Tooey case said that, because Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation statute does not provide a recovery for occupational diseases that take many years to develop, such as with asbestos, the legislature must have intended to allow personal injury cases to fill that gap," Behrens stated. "Immunity for employers is congruent with coverage for employees: when the Workers' Compensation remedy expires, so does the bar against suing the employer. "Why is it that the Pennsylvania plaintiffs bar, after 40 years of asbestos litigation, brings the Tooey case when they do? Why wasn't it brought 40 years when the asbestos litigation started? It's because of this trend that plaintiffs lawyers used to focus on the most culpable companies, the major producers [of asbestos], until they were forced into bankruptcy." Daley, meanwhile, stated the topic had been brought before the state Supreme Court on several other occasions over a period of years, but just not heard until that particular case. "I can't speak to why that would be, obviously. But from our point of view, the reason it took so long is because it just had to work its way through the court system," he said. "When the Supreme Court did decide to take a look at it, the decision that the Supreme Court made, was made. I don't think there is any particular reason, because the issue has been out there for longer than a decade." Marshall speculated the reason behind the Supreme Court's taking another look at the prospect of pursuit of damages outside Workers' Compensation law could be due to "a constitutional issue" plaintiff counsel raised in Tooey, one which he said had not previously been "fully addressed." "The issue revolves around a provision in the Pennsylvania State Constitution, which requires the employer to provide reasonable compensation for an employee's injury, in return for the employee foregoing their right to sue the employer," Marshall said. Daley pointed to the future potential of more Pennsylvania plaintiffs attempting to utilize the additional avenue of recovery provided for. "I think with any mesothelioma case, because of the circumstances of the development of the disease, you're never going to be within the [300-week Workers'] Comp window," Daley said. "And so any practitioner doing mesothelioma work is obviously aware of Landis and Tooey, and I'm certain those practitioners investigate former employers and in some instances, decide to litigate against them." Marshall agreed with his colleague. "Mesothelioma is a very long latency disease that takes years and years to develop and manifest," Marshall said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jury Reaches Defense Verdicts -------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a St. Louis jury reached defense verdicts for three defendants in an asbestos lawsuit alleging take-home exposure. The trial took nearly a month, beginning on Aug. 15 and concluding on Sept. 9 with three defense verdicts in favor of defendants Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Honeywell International. Judge Steven Russell Ohmer presided over the trial. Ford Motor Company was represented by Rodney Loomer of Turner Reid in Springfield, Mo. Honeywell was represented by Anthony Springfield of Polsinelli PC in Kansas City, Mo. Volkswagen was represented by Tracy Jon Cowan of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young in St. Louis. Plaintiff Donna Harrison filed her complaint on May 27, 2015, alleging she developed mesothelioma from take-home exposure to asbestos. She claims she breathed in asbestos fibers from family members' clothing. She was represented by Carson Menges of Flint & Associates in Glen Carbon. St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1522-CC09759 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Air Force Mechanic's Widow Sues Dozens ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a widow is suing dozens of companies, alleging their negligence led to the death of her husband from asbestos exposure. American Optical Corp., Ameron International Corp., Archer- Daniels-Midland Co., Armstrong International Inc., et al, asbestos products manufacturers, citing alleged insufficient measures were taken to prevent injuries. Carmen Soy, individually and as special administrator of the estate of John Soy, deceased filed a lawsuit Aug. 23 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against American Optical Corp., Ameron International Corp., Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Armstrong International Inc., et al, alleging failure to exercise due care and caution for the safety of John Soy. According to the complaint, during the course of John Soy's employment, beginning in 1957 as a U.S. Air Force weapons mechanic, he was exposed to, inhaled and/or absorbed large amount of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with. On Jan. 15, 2015, the suit says, he first became aware that he had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, which ultimately lead to his death April 4, 2016. The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos in their products, failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions and failed to conduct tests on the asbestos- containing products they manufactured. Carmen Soy seeks trial by jury, compensation of more than $50,000 from each defendant, plus compensation for her husband's injuries of more than $50,000. She is represented by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-448 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Died of Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------------- Bury Free Press reported that a Pakenham man made a statement before his death in which he spoke about exposure to asbestos which went on to cause his fatal condition, an inquest has heard. Brian Buckle, 75, died at his home in Fen Road, on May 16, the inquest at Bury St Edmunds was told on Monday. A post-mortem examination confirmed an earlier diagnosis that Mr Buckle, a retired painter and decorator, died as a result of mesothelioma, a condition associated with asbestos. In his statement, Mr Buckle said during his five-year apprenticeship he swept up after other tradesmen, sometimes resulting in clouds of asbestos dust. Later, he said he worked close to carpenters who were sawing up sheets of asbestos and the resulting dust was 'impossible to avoid'. He described working in boiler rooms where pipes were lagged with asbestos and rubbing down asbestos lined walls at a laboratory in Haverhill before painting them. "I was never warned of the dangers of asbestos and never provided with a mask or other protection," he said. Assistant Suffolk Coroner Nigel Parsley said Mr Buckle's family described him as a quiet man who had purchased an old Ford Zephyr -- the same as the first car he and his wife had owned -- to use in his retirement but had only been able to drive it a few times. Mr Parsley recorded a conclusion Mr Buckle's death was due to an industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landlord Accused of Illegal Asbestos Work ---------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Glavin, writing for ABC6.com, reported that a New Bedford landlord, who owns and operates dozens of properties, will now pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General's Office back in October 2012. The lawsuit alleges Ronald Oliveira of Acushnet allowed contractors to perform illegal asbestos work on four properties he owned and operated in the city. The renovations risked exposing the public and his workers to harmful health risks associated with asbestos. Krystle Matos moved into her home on 231 Pleasant Street, back in 2014. She bought the home from Oliveira. "As soon as I woke up, I saw it on Facebook. I was like 'Woah, I know him. He's the person I bought my house from,'" Matos said after hearing about the lawsuit online. ABC6 broke the news that her home was one of four in the city involved in the lawsuit. It accuses Oliveira of breaking asbestos safety protocol while doing construction work on those properties, dating back to as early as 2009. "I was like what the heck! Hopefully it's not one of my properties! But obviously now I know it is," said Matos. The work on Matos' home was done in the basement in July of 2013, right before she bought it. Contractors reportedly broke asbestos- containing ceiling tiles, and left them sitting there for a month, putting the public and workers at a very high health risk. "Everything was clean when we got here, so I'm definitely going to have someone inspect the house for anything that can cause harm to my daughter," said Matos. The other homes in New Bedford include: * A triple-decker on 11 Merrill Street, where Oliveira's contractors began cleaning and painting asbestos-containing shingles in 2009. The contractors were reportedly not wearing protective equipment. * A three-family house on 197 Weld Street where contractors cut and broke asbestos siding and demolished a second floor front deck, and left the debris in the dumpster. This allegedly occurred in January 2011. And in March and April of 2011, Oliveira reportedly arranged for contractors to renovate the exterior of a three-family house at 8 Harmony Street, which was covered in asbestos-containing siding. Contractors broke the siding and left the debris to dry. "I wish he was more concerned, or caring about his property," said Matos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flint Law Adds Attys to Expand Asbestos Practice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Helenthal, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that Flint Law Firm LLC recently announced the addition of two asbestos litigators and a new associate, stating the additions signal "new growth in all areas of the firm." The two new partners are Troyce Wolf and Demetrios Zacharopoulos. The law firm has offices in Glen Carbon, Paducah, Dallas and Baltimore. Wolf, who heads the Dallas office, specializes in asbestos litigation, toxic torts and personal injury law, and is credited with securing jury verdicts in excess of $100 million. He is a graduate of Southern Methodist University and was admitted to the Texas Bar in 1988. He has been selected as a Texas Super Lawyer for 10 years. Zacharopoulos, who works in the firm's Baltimore office, graduated from the University of Maryland, is a member of the State Bar of Maryland and is also admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Flint Law also added an associate, Tyler Wilke, who had headed the Child Support Division in the Madison County State's Attorney Office. "Many of the cases the firm handles involve those who have suffered injuries from defective products, pharmaceuticals, and from exposure to asbestos," firm spokesman Keith Huckabay told the Record. He said the firm now has more than 60 employees to focus on "catastrophic" cases. "By focusing solely on catastrophic injury, terminal illness and wrongful death claims, Flint Law Firm LLC is a leader at uncovering the critical evidence required to recover maximum compensation for its clients," he said. Asbestos exposure continues to be a problem in the United States, Huckabay said, with several industries using the product as late as 2001. Industry areas most likely to have used asbestos are wide ranging, he said, and include pipe and ductwork insulation; home and building insulation; cement; fire-proofing materials; ceiling, wall and floor tiles; soundproofing materials; roofing materials; paints or textured paints; drywall joint compounds; pumps; brake pads and linings; clutches and gaskets; industrial materials; and boilers, furnaces and furnace doors. He said a consumer doesn't necessarily have to get cancer from a product in order to seek damages. "A diagnosis of asbestosis does not mean that cancer will necessarily develop, but it does confirm asbestos exposure and damage to the respiratory system," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Staffordshire Worker Died from Asbestos Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Staffordshire Newsletter reported that a man who had worked at Rugeley Power Station died after being exposed to asbestos dust, an inquest heard. Alan Ernest Walker, 71, of Yew Tree Road, Brereton, died at County Hospital on June 11, after being diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer in May 2015. An inquest held in Cannock heard Mr Walker had worked as an industrial engineer at Rugeley Power Station from the 1970s for about 20 years. He had been admitted to Katharine House Hospice after being diagnosed with cancer. He had received a pay out after it was proved to have originated from exposure to asbestos. He had been admitted to hospital from the hospice the same day he had died. He was short of breath and had palpitations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Ct. Flips $8MM Asbestos Verdict ----------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Florida appellate court has reversed an $8 million verdict entered in an asbestos case, ordering an entry of a directed verdict for Crane Co. and a new trial on all issues as to R.J. Reynolds after finding, in part, that the trial court erred when it did not exclude the testimony of several plaintiff experts, one of which, the court opined, failed to support his methodology with any data. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Hotelier Dies From Lung Cancer ------------------------------------------------------- Tim MacFarlan, writing for Bath Chronicle, reported that a retired hotelier from Saltford died just six days after being diagnosed with lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos throughout her life. Judith Mansfield passed away at her home in Brockley Road in the early hours of June 25. The 70-year-old grew up in a prefab house which may have contained asbestos insulation, Avon Coroner's Court heard on September 15. She also worked as a dinner lady and hotelier in environments with asbestos-lined pipes. A statement from Dr James Walters, a consultant in respiratory medicine at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, was read out by coroner's assistant Jane Grant. In it he said: "I met Mrs Mansfield at my pleural clinic on June 19. She had increasing breathlessness and a large collection of fluid around her left lung. "She lived in a prefab building as a child and then as a dinner lady and working in hotels she was around asbestos-covered pipes." Mrs Mansfield, originally from Bridport, Dorset, was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lung lining almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos. She was offered chemotherapy but declined and died six days later at home. Assistant coroner for Avon Mfanwy Buckeridge said: "Although Judith Mansfield couldn't remember any specific exposure to asbestos she could recall working in environments where it was present -- in schools, kitchens, hotels and possibly a prefab house." Ms Buckeridge recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects $8-Mil. Verdict in Asbestos Case --------------------------------------------------------------- News4Jax.com reported that pointing to problems with expert witnesses, an appeals court rejected an $8 million verdict in a case filed by a man who said he suffered mesothelioma because of exposure to asbestos in cigarette filters and in other products. A panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and a "directed" verdict in favor of Crane Co., a manufacturing company. It ruled against Richard DeLisle, who won the verdict in the Broward County case. DeLisle alleged that he was exposed to asbestos in filters of Kent cigarettes he smoked in the 1950s. R.J. Reynolds is a successor company to the manufacturer of Kent cigarettes. He also alleged exposure in the 1960s in a workplace through sheet gaskets used by Crane Co., a valve and pump manufacturer, the ruling said. The challenge to the verdict and $8 million award, which also affected two other companies, focused heavily on expert witnesses used by DeLisle in the case. In a 21-page ruling, the appeals court said testimony of three of DeLisle's expert witnesses should not have been admitted and that the circuit court "failed to properly exercise its gatekeeping function" in dealing with the experts. "In sum, the trial court's gatekeeping role is not a passive role," said the ruling, written by appeals-court Judge Martha Warner and joined by Chief Judge Cory Ciklin and Judge Mark Klingensmith. "The court should affirmatively prevent imprecise, untested scientific opinion from being admitted. The expert must explain his or her methodology and how it is applied to the data relevant to the case." While ordering a new trial for R.J. Reynolds, the court said Crane Co. should receive a directed verdict because testimony from one of the expert witnesses was the only evidence linking the manufacturer to DeLisle's mesothelioma. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Worker Awarded Nearly $13MM ---------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that when spring was in the air at Florida Power & Light Co.'s Turkey Point power plant in the 1970s, so was asbestos, according to a former employee. The off-peak seasons of spring and fall meant major maintenance at the Homestead plant, including stripping large amounts of asbestos-filled insulation from equipment, Richard Batchelor claims. "It's just raining down on people," said Batchelor's attorney, Juan Bauta of the Ferraro Law Firm in Miami. After Batchelor was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2015, he filed a lawsuit against 26 companies that might be liable for exposing him to asbestos, including FPL, his former employer. FPL was shielded from litigation by workers' compensation laws, and claims against all but one of the other defendants were dismissed or settled. The last company standing was the construction and civil engineering firm Bechtel Corp., which oversaw maintenance at Turkey Point as a contractor - a role Bauta said made the premises liability claim challenging. "What we had to argue was that when Bechtel is on the property doing these giant overhauls, these shutdowns, they then control the premises," said Bauta, who tried the case with his colleague Gabriel Saade. "I don't think it's ever been done before." The novel approach paid off Aug. 30 when a Miami-Dade jury found Bechtel liable for nearly $13 million in damages to Batchelor and his wife. Bechtel, represented at trial by Frances Spinelli of Evert Weathersby Houff in Atlanta, argued it was not responsible for Batchelor's health because he worked for FPL. The company also argued Batchelor could not trace his disease to asbestos exposure at Turkey Point, where he was an instrument technician starting in 1974. The mesothelioma could have stemmed from Batchelor's service in the Navy or work he did later in his career, according to Bechtel. Bauta said Batchelor had minor contact with joint compound at other points in his working life--but he argued it was nothing compared to the torrent of asbestos that allegedly fell at Turkey Point during maintenance seasons. And although ship records from Batchelor's time in the military were lost, Bauta told the jury that a nuclear submarine is one of the cleanest environments in the Navy. "If there was asbestos in the air there, it would be filtered," Bauta said. "Because these guys are breathing the same air over and over again, it's being cleaned and re-oxygenated so the boat doesn't have to come out of the water." But Bauta's main focus at trial before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas was the idea that Bechtel had a responsibility to look out for FPL employees such as Batchelor. Batchelor testified that on a job site, workers looked out for each other's safety, regardless of who worked for which company. But when Bauta asked Bechtel's corporate representative whether he would expect FPL to look out for Bechtel workers and vice versa, he gave a different response. Miami attorneys won a nearly $13 million verdict tied to asbestos exposure at Florida Power & Light Co.'s Turkey Point power plant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Shows Asbestos Fibers Can Move in Soil ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that a new study shows asbestos fibers can move through sand and soil, a breakthrough that challenges current remediation strategies for preventing exposure to the cancer-causing mineral. Geologist Jane Willenbring of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego leads the ongoing study. The first phase tested the long-held belief that asbestos waste piles are locked in place when capped by soil. Willenbring's postdoctoral researcher Sanjay Mohanty of the University of Pennsylvania discovered that when organic acids coat asbestos fibers, the threads can travel through sand and soil. "This is something that can happen in soils, where you have organic acids that are created from plants, fungi and also bacteria," Willenbring told Asbestos.com. "These organic acids can coat the outside of the fibers and actually change the mobility of the fibers." Large amounts of asbestos waste buried in the environment have concerned scientists and environmentalists for years, but surprisingly, few have explored how asbestos fibers contaminate groundwater. "They find it in water, and they know where the asbestos is, so they can assume transport," Willenbring explained. "But this is the first time anyone has put a known amount of asbestos in the top of a soil column and actually saw some asbestos coming out." Prolonged exposure to asbestos may lead to mesothelioma, a rare and incurable cancer. Willenbring presented her findings in August at the 2016 American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funded the project. The EPA, Superfunds and Managing Asbestos Contamination The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to assess and fund the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, including those polluted with asbestos. Areas heavily contaminated by any hazardous chemicals or other pollutants are called Superfund sites. The National Priorities List (NPL) includes the highest priority Superfunds. There are currently 1,338 federal and general sites on the list, 13 of which are asbestos-related sites. Willenbring and her team took soil samples from the BoRit asbestos site in Ambler, Pennsylvania. Kane Core Inc., the property's owner, dumped asbestos-containing materials from a nearby manufacturing plant at the six-acre site from the early 1900s to the late 1960s. EPA reports show the waste pile is nearly 25-feet high. Federal officials added the site to the NPL in April 2009. Crews capped the entire site with soil in 2015. Capping is still regarded as the safest remediation strategy for asbestos. Hauling materials away could prove more dangerous, and controlled on-site incineration is far too costly. "Really, the EPA did the best that they could, and it's so much better than the way it was before," Willenbring said about asbestos soil capping. "This research is to try and understand how you can do things better, which is something you always strive for." Understanding of Asbestos Mobility Is Still Limited In 1977, the EPA released a report stating "asbestos migration through soil will not be a problem of any significance." Since then, science and research shows colloids -- or a mixture in which one substance is divided into colloidal particles and dispersed throughout a second substance -- move through soil, carrying other harmful contaminants with them. Despite this, the study points out the understanding of asbestos mobility remains limited. "Colloids actually don't really settle [in water], because the small, tiny movements of the water around them keep the colloids in suspension," Willenbring explained. "Asbestos fibers can actually behave quite a bit like colloids." Willenbring explained microscopic asbestos fibers and other harmful substances, such as radioactive waste, can attach themselves to colloids. "When we started this project, we thought that surely someone would have looked at whether asbestos can move through soil," Willenbring said. "Also, what are the controls? Not all soils are created equal. So what are the geochemical triggers that might cause asbestos fibers to be released from the soil?" Willenbring stressed that while asbestos fibers moved through the BoRit soil samples in lab tests, it doesn't necessarily mean the fibers at the Superfund site in Ambler are mobile or that they currently exist in the area's groundwater. "There's no evidence that it's migrating through the soil in natural conditions," she said. Findings of the Asbestos in Soil Study Researchers have worked on the ongoing lab portion of the study for a couple years. It started with a sand column experiment to determine whether untreated asbestos fibers can move through sand. Conclusion: They could not. However, the team discovered asbestos fibers moved through the sand column when they were coated with fulvic acid, humic acid and other natural organic matter. Researchers later ran a similar test using the BoRit soil samples. "We found that if we coated these fibers in organic acids, we could actually get the asbestos fibers to move through the soil," Willenbring said. She also pointed out the unique aspect ratio of asbestos fibers: More long than narrow. Because of their shape, researchers suspected asbestos fibers tangled with each other in the soil instead of moving freely through it. What's Next for Researchers? Willenbring and her team continue researching new directions for the study. One idea: Figure out how to regulate the amount of organic acids in the piles to limit or decrease the amount of movement. "We could do something else to the piles to affect their geochemistry so we don't get transport," she said. Willenbring said one option may involve altering the fabric used between the asbestos materials and the soil to affect the pile's geochemistry. Another key may lie in keeping plants alive on the soil above these capped piles. Soil ecologist Brenda Casper is working with Willenbring and others to determine which native grasses best hold the top soil. "If you don't have plants on the surface of the piles, then you have more erosion of that cap, and eventually, it will just have the same problem again," Willenbring explained. While grasses and native plants could prove beneficial, Willenbring said trees growing on or around the piles are problematic if they fall because their extensive root systems could unearth buried asbestos materials. "In a place like Pennsylvania, you often have trees come in even if you don't want them," she said. "What you basically have to do is mow the surface so the seedlings don't get a chance to take hold." Willenbring also pointed out that not all soils are created equal, so one remediation strategy at a site like BoRit could have different outcomes in places like Libby, Montana, the site of the largest, longest-running asbestos cleanup project in U.S. history. "We don't yet have soil from Libby, but it would be great to get some," Willenbring said. "Everyone is worried about Libby, and we are too." Willenbring used Libby as an example of how movement of asbestos fibers might not be a bad thing, in some cases. If the fibers move to groundwater, in most cases that would move them deeper and deeper into the ground, decreasing the risk of exposure. The problem then comes when people decide to do things like irrigate, which can make a pathway between the subsurface and the surface where when the water dries out, it can lead to asbestos inhalation hazards. "That's the kind of thing that worries us and why we're interested in finding ways to help." ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Revives Dust Claims vs. CBS ----------------------------------------------------- Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reported that a jury should decide whether dust blown off of mechanical parts made by the former Westinghouse Electric Corp during repairs several decades ago contained asbestos or not, a federal appeals court held on Tuesday. The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed part of a ruling last year in favor of CBS Corp, the last remaining defendant in a lawsuit filed in 2009 on behalf of the estate of Howard Frankenberger, an Indiana pipefitter who died of asbestos-related lung disease in 2005. ********* 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 * * *