/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161107.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 222 Headlines 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: "Richmond" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas AETNA INC: Claims for ERISA Benefits & Breach of Contract Pending AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Trilegiant Class Action Appeal AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Conn. Case v. Webloyalty Underway AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Calif. Case Appeal ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Firefighters' Pension Fund Suit Underway AMERICAN HEALTH: Faces "Smith" Suit Under FLSA, S.C. Wages Act AMERICAN WATER: W.Va. Court Grants Initial OK to $126MM Accord ATLAS VAN: "Leitzbach" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers AUTOLIV INC: Nov. 17 Final Hearing to Approve Dealers Class Deal AUTOLIV INC: Reached Agreement in Principle in 3 Canada Suits AWP INC: Faces "Luster" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA B & A CONTRACTING: "Ntalianas" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations BELFOR USA: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Alleged Violations of FLSA BELLA AUTOMOTIVE: "Borrero" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA BEST WAY: Illegally Deducts Drivers' Paychecks, "Pride" Suit Says BLUE CROSS: "Cotton" Claims Violation of Mental Health Parity Act BLUE CROSS: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Health Plan Renewal BOFI HOLDING: Securities Litigation in California Underway BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Faces 5,300+ Plavix Injury Claims BRISTOL-MYERS: Amylin and Lilly Still Face 500 Byetta Suits BRISTOL-MYERS: 60 Abilify Cases in US, 2 in Canada Pending BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Two Former Employees Still Pending CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Defending TCPA Action in Kentucky CACAFE INC: Faces "Marino" Suit for Misclassifying Workers CAPITAL BANK: Settlement of Stockholder Case Awaits Approval CAPITAL BANK: Reached Deal to Settle Overdraft Fees Action CARESOUTH HEALTH: "Griswell" FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Ga. CNA FINANCIAL: Management Evaluating 401(k) Plus Plan Class Suit COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "De Lacour" Suit Claims False Claims on Tom's COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit CROSSVILLE BNRV: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Smith" Suit Says CVR PARTNERS: Petition for Fee Award Remains Pending in "Sloan" D.H.E COMPANY: "Ahwireng" Suit Asserts FLSA, Labor Law Breach DANNON CO: Faces "Podpeskar" Suit Over "All Natural" Yoghurt Ad DCH HEALTHCARE: "McGrew" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA DIAMOND RESORTS: "Finazzo" Files Suit Over False Advertisements DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Davenport's TCPA Class Suit Underway DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Case Proceeds to Discovery DRDGOLD: May Appeal Certification, Transmissibility of Damages EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Settles Charleston Residents' Spill Case EXPEDIA INC: Defending Against Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit in Calif. FACEBOOK INC: "Letizia" Suit Alleges Inflated Viewing Statistics FHG REALTY: Crawford et al. Allege Violation of FLSA, NJ Wage Law FIDELITY RESOURCES: "Onyenze" Lawsuit Invokes FLSA, Md. Wage Laws GALLATIN COUNTY: Faces "Crawford" Suit Under FLSA, Ken. Wage Act GEN ALHAMBRA: "Dunkijacobsnolton" Claims Illegal Payroll Policies GENERAL MILLS: "Salamanca" False Ad Suit Moved to Northern Calif. GNC HOLDINGS: $9.5 Million Settlement of "Brewer" Case Approved GNC HOLDINGS: "Naranjo" Class Suit in Calif. Underway GNC HOLDINGS: Judgment in "Chevalier" Wage Action Under Appeal HELLER AND FRISONE: "Merritt" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FDCPA HOPE HARDISON: Faces "Ross" Sued Over Fiduciary Duties Breach HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suit by Home Depot INGRAM MICRO: No Response Yet to Scheiner Class Suit in Del. INTERSIL CORP: Faces "Zucker" Stock Suit Over Sale to Renesas JEFFREY STEIN: "Cabezas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages KING CABLE: Faces "Pavoni" Suit Over FLSA Violation L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Reached in EoTech Class Actions L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Certification Motion Pending L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 401(k) Plan Class Action in New York LEGEND SENIOR: "Kilgore" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma LENDINGTREE INC: Class Notice Now Complete in "Dijkstra" LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Still Faces 2 Class Suits in Alabama LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation LOVE MY CAR: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Pending LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $26MM Settlement Up for Nov. 17 Hearing LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Proceeding in "Gold" Action MASTERCARD INC: Deposition Discovery to Commence in December 2016 MASTERCARD INC: Trial in British Columbia Case Set for Sept. 2018 MASTERCARD INC: Facing U.K. Consumers Collective Action MASTERCARD INC: High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Dec. 2016 MASTERCARD INC: Late 2017 Trial for EMV Suit v Network Defendants MCCORMICK & CO: "Holve" Suit Alleges False Ad of Natural Products MCDONALD'S: Settles Franchise Workers' Wage Case for $3.75MM MDL 2743: 16 Abrasion Suits Transferred to Virginia MID-AMERICAN: "Donner" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2492 MIDWEST EXCHANGE: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Overruled Demurrer in "Schneider" MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Remand Securities Case Denied MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tentative Deal Reached in Suit v. TalentBin MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Dagut and Gordon Class Suits Underway N&M COOLING: "Garcia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Sullivan" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Tolbert" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Towe" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Washington" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Williams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Wysocki" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NCR CORP: Faces "Pederson" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code NIDO CAFFE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. to Hold Oral Argument on Dec. 8 PANDORA MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Sheridan Suits PANDORA MEDIA: Suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One Stayed PIRIPI VMP: "Shkolnik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports RIPE JUICE: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SC MAINTENANCE: "Laguerre" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA SHANGHAI YINLING: Faces "Siegmund" Suit Over Acquisition SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss "Sousa" Action Underway SONY INTERACTIVE: "Moschitti" Alleges Defect in PlayStation 4 STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Class Action in Texas Remains Pending STONERIDGE INC: Still Defends "Royal" Class Action in Oklahoma STORMPROOF INC: "Melo" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Speakes" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. TRAVIS BUQUET: "Mejia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA UBER: Drivers Must be Considered Employees, British Tribunal Says UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Hoy" Litigation Alleges Violation of ERISA U.S. RENAL: "Holguin" Suit Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Code UNIVERSAL AUTO: "Saghatelian" Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Code VONAGE HOLDINGS: Status Report Due Dec. 23 in Merkin & Smith Case WAL-MART STORES: "Maestas" Alleges False Ad of Battery Warranty WEST BANCORPORATION: Expects to Pay $250,000 to Settle Iowa Suit WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Orders Attorneys to Revise Spill Settlement WILLBROS GROUP: Class Suit Over Financial Restatement Pending WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in Del. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Amended Complaint Filed in Oklahoma Case WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks Summary Judgment in Singleton-LoGrasso WORLD WRESTLING: Dismissal of "Laurinaitis" Action Sought WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwell Seeks to Add WCW Inc as Defendant YAHOO INC: Faces "Savett" Suit Over Theft of Users' Personal Info ********* 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: "Richmond" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned James Richmond, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. 20/20 Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06051, was transferred from the District of Northern Illinois to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00994-Y to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. 20/20 Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications company that provides wireless Internet services for homes and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 600 N Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Colleen Grace DeRosa, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 558-3028 Facsimile: (312) 807-3619 E-mail: colleen.derosa@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Michael H. Cramer, Esq. CONNELLY SHEEHAN & MORAN 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 372-1969 AETNA INC: Claims for ERISA Benefits & Breach of Contract Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the plaintiffs' remaining claims for ERISA benefits and breach of contract in the Out-of-Network Benefit Proceedings. The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation. "Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to our members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of our members who received services from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers. "The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020"). In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling. "On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we would have been released from claims relating to our out-of- network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing. The medical associations were not parties to the settlement agreement. "Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120 million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. "The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As a result of this termination, we released the reserve established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67 million ($103 million pretax). "On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining claims." Aetna is one of the nation's diversified health care benefits companies. AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Trilegiant Class Action Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have filed a notice of appeal and no schedule has been set yet for the appeal. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13, 2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate. On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which were due February 29, 2016. If no dispositive motions were filed, a joint trial memorandum would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May 3, 2016. If dispositive motions were filed, the joint trial memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection would take place on November 1, 2016. On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class certification, with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an opposition brief on December 15, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on December 29, 2015. On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the individual claims of the remaining named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a response on March 21, 2016, and the Company filed its response on April 4, 2016. On August 23, 2016 the court granted Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment as to all remaining claims against the Defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2016. No schedule has been set yet for the appeal. The Company is one of the world's leading loyalty and customer engagement solutions companies. The Company designs, markets and services programs that strengthen and extend customer relationships for many of the world's largest and most respected companies. AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Conn. Case v. Webloyalty Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Connecticut court has held oral argument, but it has not yet issued a decision regarding Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their case. On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the EFT, ECPA, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and CUTPA violation (the "Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint, which Plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the Plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike. The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as to whether all of Plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible. The court permitted the Plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other discovery was stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited discovery. The Plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the Defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on April 24, 2015, the Defendants filed their reply briefs in response to that opposition. On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave to amend. On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal decision. Plaintiff's opening appeals brief was filed on February 10, 2016. The Company's answering brief was filed on April 15, 2016 and the Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 11, 2016. The court held oral argument on September 14, 2016, but it has not yet issued a decision regarding Plaintiffs' appeal. The Company is one of the world's leading loyalty and customer engagement solutions companies. The Company designs, markets and services programs that strengthen and extend customer relationships for many of the world's largest and most respected companies. AFFINION GROUP: No Schedule Yet in Calif. Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has not yet scheduled a hearing for the appeal in a class action lawsuit against Webloyalty. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of CUTPA. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the Plaintiff, Webloyalty charged Plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from Plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under ROSCA. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30, 2013. The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the ECPA and for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions and issue a decision on Plaintiff's motion without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The court allowed the Plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint was not futile. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 2, 2016. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing for this appeal. The Company is one of the world's leading loyalty and customer engagement solutions companies. The Company designs, markets and services programs that strengthen and extend customer relationships for many of the world's largest and most respected companies. ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Firefighters' Pension Fund Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the class action lawsuit by the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund. On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and certain of its current or former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. share prices. The Court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs. On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant, and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on March 23, 2015. On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to state a claim as to any of the defendants, but permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed second and third amended complaints with substantially similar claims and theories. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 22, 2015. On December 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain claims against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and the officer and director defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss as to other claims. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. intends to continue to vigorously defend this suit. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., together with its subsidiaries, is a marketplace and transaction solutions provider for the real estate, mortgage and consumer debt industries. Altisource's proprietary business processes, vendor and electronic payment management software and behavioral science-based analytics improve outcomes for marketplace participants. AMERICAN HEALTH: Faces "Smith" Suit Under FLSA, S.C. Wages Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Gretchen Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. American Health Associates, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv- 03480-TMC-KFM (D.S.C., October 25, 2016), seeks to recover wages under the Fair Labor Standards and the South Carolina Wages Act, and various other state wage payment acts. The case also alleges violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. American Health Associates, Inc. is a privately held family owned company that provides clinical reference laboratory. The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Reckenbeil, Esq. Lawrence E. McNair III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN G. RECKENBEIL, LLC 215 Magnolia Street (29306) P.O. Box 1633 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Phone: (864) 582-5472 Fax: (864) 582-7280 E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com AMERICAN WATER: W.Va. Court Grants Initial OK to $126MM Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on October 31 approved the preliminary principles, terms and conditions of an agreed-upon settlement (the "Settlement") with respect to claims among West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of American Water Works Company, Inc. (the "Company"), American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and the Company (collectively, the "American Water Defendants"), and all class members, putative class members, claimants and potential claimants (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), arising out of the January 9, 2014 Freedom Industries, Inc. chemical spill into the Elk River in West Virginia. In August 2015, Freedom Industries and six former Freedom Industries employees (three of whom also were former owners of Freedom Industries), pled guilty to criminal violations of the federal Clean Water Act as a result of this chemical spill. The terms of the Settlement propose a global federal and state resolution of all litigation and potential claims against the American Water Defendants and their insurers. A claimant may elect to opt out of any final settlement agreement, in which case such claimant will not receive any benefit from or be bound by the terms of the Settlement. Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement and any subsequent final settlement agreement, the American Water Defendants have not admitted, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in any of the actions to be resolved. To date, there are 73 pending cases against WVAWC in federal and state courts with respect to the Freedom Industries chemical spill, including a consolidated class action originally filed against the American Water Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Federal action"). The Federal action includes classes comprised of residential and business customers of WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant as of January 9, 2014. During September and October 2016, the court in the Federal action dismissed all claims against the Company and AWWSC, leaving WVAWC as the remaining American Water Defendant in the lawsuit. A trial in the Federal action solely on issues of fault was scheduled to begin on October 25, 2016, but the court in the Federal action delayed the start of the trial pending ongoing settlement discussions between the parties. Additionally, in January 2016, all of the then-filed state court cases were referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further proceedings, and in June 2016, class action plaintiffs in the Mass Litigation Panel proceeding filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint naming only WVAWC as a defendant. The proposed aggregate pre-tax amount of the Settlement is $126 million, of which $65 million would be contributed by WVAWC, and the remainder would be contributed by certain of the Company's general liability insurance carriers. The Company has general liability insurance under a series of policies underwritten by a number of individual carriers. Two of these insurance carriers, which provide an aggregate of $50 million in insurance coverage to the Company under these policies, were requested, but presently have not agreed, to participate in the Settlement. The Company and WVAWC will vigorously pursue their rights to insurance coverage from these non-participating carriers for any contributions by WVAWC to the Settlement. In this regard, WVAWC has filed a lawsuit against one of these carriers alleging that the carrier's failure to agree to participate in the Settlement constitutes a breach of contract, and the Company is considering pursuing similar remedies against the other non-participating carrier. Despite these efforts, the Company may not ultimately be successful in obtaining full or further reimbursement under these insurance policies for amounts that WVAWC may be required to contribute to the Settlement. As a result of these events, WVAWC intends to record a charge to earnings, net of insurance receivables, of $65 million ($39 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2016. The Company intends to fund WVAWC's contributions to the Settlement through existing sources of liquidity, although no contribution by WVAWC will be required unless and until the terms of the Settlement are finally approved by the court in the Federal action. Furthermore, under the terms of the Settlement, WVAWC has agreed that it will not seek rate recovery from the Public Service Commission of West Virginia for approximately $4 million in direct response costs expensed in 2014 by WVAWC relating to the chemical spill as well as for amounts paid by WVAWC under the Settlement. The Settlement intends to establish a two-tier settlement fund for the payment of claims, comprised of a guaranteed fund of $76 million and a claims-based payment fund of $50 million, to which funds WVAWC and the Company's general liability insurance carriers will contribute. An additional $25 million would be contributed to the guaranteed fund through a separate settlement by another defendant to the Settlement. The court in the Federal action has given the parties 30 days to finalize, and obtain the court's preliminary approval of, the terms of the Settlement. As a result, the court in the Federal action has ordered a continuance of the trial date to December 5, 2016. If preliminary approval of the Settlement is obtained, notice of the terms of the Settlement would then be provided to members of the settlement class. Following the notice period, the court in the Federal action would hold a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement. There can be no assurance that the court in the Federal action will provide its approval as to any agreement negotiated between the parties reflecting the terms of the Settlement. ATLAS VAN: "Leitzbach" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK LEITZBACH, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ATLAS VAN LINES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC-638058 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles), October 25, 2016, alleges wage and labor violations, arising out of, among other things, Defendants' alleged misclassification of its truck and moving drivers as independent contractors. Defendants provide various shipping, moving, and delivery services throughout California and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Levi M. Plesset, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 514-5681 Fax: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: Ghh@haffuetlawyers.com lp@haffuerlawyers.com AUTOLIV INC: Nov. 17 Final Hearing to Approve Dealers Class Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a final approval hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2016, on the settlement with the truck and equipment dealers class. The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti- competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes -- direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers -- who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts. In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on behalf of the three classes in the MDL. In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs; in December 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer class settlement; and on June 20, 2016, the MDL court granted final approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the objections of several individual class members, some of whom have appealed the MDL court's approval of the Company's end-payor settlement and several other defendants' settlements that were approved at the same time. This appeal will delay the finality of the Company's settlement with the end-payor class. In addition, several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) have opted-out of all of the pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company's settlement. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the venue for the MDL, against the Company and the other settling defendants in the end-payor class settlement. The Company has not been served with the lawsuit. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter. In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability, reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser class settlement described above. The total amount of these additional settlements was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015 approximately $77 million as a result of these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in 2014. In April 2016, the Company reached an agreement to settle with the truck and equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the class and the opportunity for class members to object to or opt- out of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2016. Autoliv is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of automotive safety systems to the automotive industry with a broad range of product offerings, including passive safety systems and active safety systems. AUTOLIV INC: Reached Agreement in Principle in 3 Canada Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. On October 13, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in three of the four class actions to settle on a nationwide class basis for an amount that is not material to the Company's results of operations. The settlement is subject to the execution of a formal settlement agreement and court approval following notice to the class members. Once approved, this national settlement will include the claims of the putative members of the fourth class action. The Company accrued amounts during the three month periods ended March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016 and an additional amount during the three month period ended September 30, 2016 in connection with these claims. Autoliv is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of automotive safety systems to the automotive industry with a broad range of product offerings, including passive safety systems and active safety systems. AWP INC: Faces "Luster" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAULETTE LUSTER 4964 East 110th Street Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 and BETTY HAAS 2223 25th Street NE Canton, Ohio 44705 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AWP INC., D/B/A AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE c/o Statutory Agent CT Corporation System 1300 East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Case No. 1:16-cv-02613-CAB (N.D. Ohio, October 26, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides temporary traffic control services at work sites throughout the United States, such as one-lane flagging operations and multi-lane road closures. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com B & A CONTRACTING: "Ntalianas" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spiros Ntalianas and Ilias Ilyrian, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. B & A Contracting of Landmark Inc., and B & A Contracting of NY Inc., and Kostas Georgiades, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:16-cv-05934 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2016) was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to remedy Defendants' alleged wrongful withholding of Plaintiffs' lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation. Plaintiffs also bring these claims under New York Labor Law as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations for alleged violations of minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay and notice and record-keeping requirements. Finally, Plaintiffs bring a claim for alleged breach of contract. Corporate Defendants are owned and managed by Defendant Kostas Georgiades and are in the business of performing tile installations for various commercial buildings and schools in New York City. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Phone: (718) 777-0400 Fax: (718) 777-0599 E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com BELFOR USA: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Alleged Violations of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Kelly, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-01898-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla., October 31, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay lawful overtime compensation. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC. conducts property restoration and disaster mitigation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan Labar, Esq. Scott C. Adams, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Phone: (407) 835-8968 Fax: (407) 835-8969 BELLA AUTOMOTIVE: "Borrero" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON RODRIGUEZ BORRERO, Plaintiff, vs. BELLA AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LTD a/k/a HEADQUARTER TOYOTA, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, seeks to recover, on behalf of similarly situated, monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of the laws of the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bella Automotive Group Ltd., doing business as Headquarter Toyota, operates as an automobile dealer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Phone: (305) 308 - 5619 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Phone: (305) 773 - 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com BEST WAY: Illegally Deducts Drivers' Paychecks, "Pride" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lemiual l. Pride, Jimmy Cook, Jr., Karl Slocumb, Frederick Manning, Mario Lorenzo White v. Best Way Logistics 1, Inc. and Andriy Oleskiv, Case No. 1:16-cv-09901 (N.D. Ill., October 25, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other truck drivers that work or worked for Best Way and were subject to a weekly deduction from their paycheck without the prior written consent of the drivers as required by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants operate a freight transportation arrangement company located in Palatine, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Maduff, Esq. Walker R. Lawrence, Esq. MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC 205 N. Michigan, Ave., Suite 2050 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 276-9000 BLUE CROSS: "Cotton" Claims Violation of Mental Health Parity Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Cotten, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-12176-MLW (D. Mass., October 27, 2016), alleges violation by the Defendant of the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 by denying coverage for mental health treatment. Defendant is a not-for-profit managed care subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 573-5118 Fax: (617) 371-2950 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Phone: 954-616-8995 Fax: 954-206-0374 E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Health Plan Renewal ------------------------------------------------------- Paul Simon, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 639205 (Cal. Super., October 31, 2016), was brought for alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and declaratory relief against Anthem for characterizing and marketing its 2017 individual and family health plan contracts as a "renewal" of its 2016 plans despite changing the plans from "Preferred Provider Organization" or "PPO" plans, which offer out- of-network benefits, into "Exclusive Provider Organization" or "EPO" plans, which provide no out-of-network benefits. BLUE CROSS -- http://www.bcbs.com/-- is a medical insurance provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Bidart, Esq. Travis M. Corby, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP 600 South Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: (909) 621-4935 Fax: (909) 625-6915 E-mail: MBidart@shernoff.com TCorby@shernoff.com - and - Jerry Flanagan, Esq. Laura Antonini, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: (310) 392-0522 Fax: (310) 392-8874 E-mail: Jerry@consumerwatchdog.org Laura@consumerwatchdog.org BOFI HOLDING: Securities Litigation in California Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the consolidated class action lawsuit. On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case"). On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. The Class Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaints filed in the Golden Case and the Hazan Case both allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful conduct that is alleged in a complaint that was filed in a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter"), and that as a result the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class Action and in the Employment Matter, as well as those plaintiffs' statement of the underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously defending both cases. BofI Holding is the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a diversified financial services company with approximately $7.9 billion in assets that provides consumer and business banking products through its branchless, low-cost distribution channels and affinity partners. BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Faces 5,300+ Plavix Injury Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Currently, over 5,300 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multi- district litigation (MDL) to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: Amylin and Lilly Still Face 500 Byetta Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of almost 2,300 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 137 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a multi-district litigation (MDL) or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP). In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs have appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: 60 Abilify Cases in US, 2 in Canada Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Otsuka) are co- defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been approximately 60 cases filed in state and federal courts and two cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global specialty biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines that help patients prevail over serious diseases. BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Two Former Employees Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. continues to defend against class action lawsuits by two of former employees, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016. The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York state law against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the FLSA and New York state law. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We believe there is a reasonable possibility of loss related to these claims, however, given the early stage of the case, we are currently unable to determine the potential range of exposure, if any." As of September 25, 2016, Buffalo Wild Wings owned and operated 617 company-owned restaurants, including 608 Buffalo Wild Wings(R), 7 R Taco(R), and 2 PizzaRev(R) restaurants in the United States and Canada. Buffalo Wild Wings also franchised an additional 602 restaurants, including 595 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants and 7 R Taco restaurants. CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Defending TCPA Action in Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------- Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Company is party to a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephones without first obtaining consent due to reassignment of the number or revocation of prior consent. At the present time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a liability related to this matter. Cabela's Incorporated is a specialty omni-channel retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, shooting sports, and related outdoor merchandise. CACAFE INC: Faces "Marino" Suit for Misclassifying Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- LEONA MARINO on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CACAFE, INC., JANE ZHENG, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-06291-DMR (N.D. Cal., October 31, 2016), seeks relief from Defendants' alleged willful misclassification of its Instore Demonstrators as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CAcafe is a coffee manufacturer and distributor that contracts with various companies to promote its products. Costco Corporation is a corporation that, in relevant part, operates a national chain of warehouse stores in which it regularly present samples of food products it sells to customers. Club Demonstration Services is a corporation which provides "demonstrations and services . . . to Costco Wholesale, its vendors and its members" according to Club Demonstration Services' website. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Schwartz, Esq. Eduard Meleshinsky, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 1330 Broadway, Suite 1630 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 888-891-8489 Fax: 510-444-9301 E-mail: Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com CAPITAL BANK: Settlement of Stockholder Case Awaits Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the case, In re CommunityOne Bancorp Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, No. 5:16-cv-00037 (the "Consolidated WDNC Action"), remains pending. On January 16, 2016, a case captioned Robert Garfield v. Capital Bank Financial Corp., et al., Index No. 2016-001194-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.) (the "Garfield Action"), was filed on behalf of a putative class of Capital Bank Financial shareholders against Capital Bank Financial, its directors, and CommunityOne in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida in connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Capital Bank Financial director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger, that CommunityOne aided and abetted such breaches, and that Capital Bank Financial, its directors and CommunityOne failed to disclose material information in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. On February 29, 2016, a case captioned Curtis R. Pendleton v. Robert L. Reid, et al., Case 5:16-cv-00037 (W.D.N.C.) (the "Pendleton Action"), was filed on behalf of a putative class of CommunityOne shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and Capital Bank Financial in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint Proxy Statement that, plaintiff alleges, is materially incomplete and misleading. On March 14, 2016, a case captioned Floyd Scrogham v. Robert L. Reid, et al., No. 5:16-cv-00045 (the "Scrogham Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of a putative class of CommunityOne shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and Capital Bank Financial. The complaint in the Scrogham Action, like the complaint in the Pendleton Action, alleges, among other things, that certain defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint Proxy Statement that, plaintiffs allege, is materially incomplete and misleading. The Pendleton and Scrogham Actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. On March 31, 2016, the Pendleton and Scrogham Actions were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re CommunityOne Bancorp Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, No. 5:16-cv-00037 (the "Consolidated WDNC Action"). On April 1, 2016, the parties to the Consolidated WDNC Action filed with the Court a memorandum of understanding in which the parties agreed on the terms of a settlement of those lawsuits. In connection with the settlement, CommunityOne made certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016. The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement following completion of confirmatory discovery, consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court. There can be no assurance that the parties to the Consolidated WDNC Action will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it will release all claims in the Consolidated WDNC Action that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith and preclude further proceedings. On April 4, 2016, the parties to the Garfield Action reached an agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the Garfield Action and entered into a stipulation of settlement. In connection with the settlement, Capital Bank Financial made certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016. The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things, the completion of confirmatory discovery, consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it will release all claims in the Garfield Action that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith and preclude further proceedings. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be approved. The defendants agreed to the settlement of these lawsuits to avoid the uncertainty, costs, distraction and disruption inherent in litigation and without admitting that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. Settlement hearings will be scheduled to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlements following notice to the Capital Bank Financial and CommunityOne stockholders. If each of the proposed settlements is finally approved by the respective courts considering such settlements, the settlements will resolve and release all claims in the Garfield Action and the Consolidated WDNC Action that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger or the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement by the respective courts. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlements, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek awards of attorneys' fees and expenses from each respective court. Capital Bank Financial, CommunityOne or their successors will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the respective courts. There can be no assurance that the courts will approve the settlements. Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009 with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the southeastern region of the United States through organic growth and acquisitions of other banks, including failed, underperforming and undercapitalized banks. CAPITAL BANK: Reached Deal to Settle Overdraft Fees Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company on September 16, 2016, entered into a settlement agreement to settle a purported class action litigation regarding the alleged improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees (the "Settlement Agreement"). The litigation was filed in the Chancery Court for Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, on February 1, 2011 against GreenBank ("GreenBank") regarding activity that occurred between February 1, 2005 and June 30, 2011. The Company completed the acquisition of GreenBank on September 8, 2011. The Company agreed to the Settlement Agreement solely by way of compromise and settlement and to avoid further litigation expense. The Company's agreement is not in any way an admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Company or by GreenBank. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay $1.5 million to settle the litigation which will be payable within fourteen days after preliminary court approval of the settlement. In addition, the Company agreed not to use debit re-sequencing, weekend and holiday high-to-low posting or weekend and holiday batch processing for a period of at least 36 months following final court approval of the settlement. The Company does not currently engage in such re-sequencing or batching process described. Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009 with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the southeastern region of the United States through organic growth and acquisitions of other banks, including failed, underperforming and undercapitalized banks. CARESOUTH HEALTH: "Griswell" FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Ga. -------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA GRISWELL On Behalf of HERSELF and All Others Similarly Situated, v. CARESOUTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv- 00144-JRH-GRS (M.D. Ga., September 29, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, according to the case docket dated October 27, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that she regularly worked more than forty hours per week without receiving overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CareSouth, Inc. operated home health and hospice operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Moore, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 523-7706 Fax: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: michaelmoore@pmkm.com efile@pmkm.com - and - Charles W. Byrd, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 1200 6th Avenue Columbus, GA 31901-2613 Phone: (706) 324-0050 Fax: (706) 327-1536 E-mail: chuckbyrd@pmkm.com efile@pmkm.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Fax: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com CNA FINANCIAL: Management Evaluating 401(k) Plus Plan Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in September 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against Continental Casualty Company (CCC), Continental Assurance Company (CAC), CNAF, the Investment Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan, The Northern Trust Company and John Does 1-10 (collectively Defendants) over the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan. The complaint alleges that Defendants breached fiduciary duties to the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan and caused prohibited transactions in violation of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when the CNA Fixed Income Fund's annuity contract with CAC was canceled. The plaintiff alleges he and a proposed class of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan participants who had invested in the Fixed Income Fund suffered lower returns in their CNA 401(k) Plus Plan investments as a consequence of these alleged violations and seeks relief on behalf of the putative class. Management has only recently begun evaluating the lawsuit as this litigation is in its preliminary stages, and as of yet no class has been certified. CCC and the other Defendants are contesting the case and management currently is unable to predict the final outcome or the impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. As of September 30, 2016, the likelihood of loss is reasonably possible, but the amount of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "De Lacour" Suit Claims False Claims on Tom's ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNE DE LACOUR, and ANDREA WRIGHT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., and TOM'S OF MAINE INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-08364 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), alleges that Defendants make false and misleading "natural" claims on Tom's of Maine product line in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Colgate-Palmolive Company -- http://www.colgatepalmolive.com/-- is a consumer products company that markets its products throughout the world. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the securities litigation has been denied. On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv- 05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. On December 17, 2015, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case was granted and the case dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were permitted to re-file their claim, which they did on February 5, 2016. Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016, which was denied by the court on September 30, 2016. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation will have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of September 30, 2016 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter. CommVault is a provider of data and information management software applications and related services. CROSSVILLE BNRV: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Smith" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond L. Smith, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Crossville BNRV Sales, LLC, GA BNRV SALES, LLC, and Derwood Littlefield, Case No. 2:16-cv-00089 (M.D. Tenn., October 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the boat and recreational vehicle detail, repair and sales business in Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com CVR PARTNERS: Petition for Fee Award Remains Pending in "Sloan" --------------------------------------------------------------- CVR Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the petition of the plaintiff's counsel in the Sloan Lawsuit for the award of attorneys' fees remains pending with the Court. As disclosed in the 2015 Form 10-K, two class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the East Dubuque Merger, (i) the "Mustard Lawsuit", which was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and (ii) the "Sloan Lawsuit" (together with Mustard Lawsuit, the "Merger Lawsuits"), which was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Merger Lawsuits alleged (among other things) breach of fiduciary duties and inadequate disclosure, in each case, in connection with the East Dubuque Merger. In February 2016, the parties to the Merger Lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the proposed settlement of the Merger Lawsuits. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to the CVR Nitrogen unitholders. In July 2016, the Mustard Lawsuit was dismissed, and in October 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order and judgment approving the settlement of the Sloan Lawsuit. The settlement resolves and releases all claims by unitholders of CVR Nitrogen challenging the East Dubuque Merger. The plaintiff's counsel in the Sloan Lawsuit has filed a petition for the award of attorneys' fees, which remains pending with the Court. The Partnership does not believe the settlement or the award of attorneys' fees will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's business, financial condition or results of operation. CVR Partners, LP (referred to as "CVR Partners" or the "Partnership") is a Delaware limited partnership, formed by CVR Energy, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, but excluding the Partnership and its subsidiaries, "CVR Energy") to own, operate and grow its nitrogen fertilizer business. Nitrogen fertilizer is used by farmers to improve the yield and quality of their crops, primarily corn and wheat. The Partnership principally produces ammonia and urea ammonium nitrate ("UAN"), an aqueous solution of urea and ammonium nitrate. The Partnership's product sales are sold on a wholesale basis in North America. D.H.E COMPANY: "Ahwireng" Suit Asserts FLSA, Labor Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL AHWIRENG, individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. D.H.E COMPANY, INC., and DOUGLAS COHEN, Case No. 1:16-cv-08388 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover, among others, alleged unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Defendants operate a construction company through their New York, New York location. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP. P.C. 1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Phone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com DANNON CO: Faces "Podpeskar" Suit Over "All Natural" Yoghurt Ad --------------------------------------------------------------- POLLY PODPESKAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DANNON COMPANY INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-08478 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendant's alleged false and misleading practices of representing its yogurt products as "All Natural" when they contain ingredients derived using non-natural genetically modified organisms. Defendant manufactures and markets yogurt products, including products under the brand name "Dannon." The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 605-4098 Fax: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 605-4098 Fax: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com DCH HEALTHCARE: "McGrew" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ARLINE McGREW, KASEY O'BRYANT, LEIGH HARBIN, MELISSA HARVEY, JANE LAGGAN, RACHEL PEARSON, KAREN BALL, TASHA SILVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. DCH HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY, Case No. 7:16-cv-01756-RDP (N.D. Ala., October 26, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, back pay, liquidated damages, attorney fees, interest, expenses and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jane Laggan also brings a claim for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. DCH Healthcare Authority Inc., doing business as DCH Health System, owns and operates hospitals that provide health care services in West Alabama. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Michael Comer, Esq. PATTERSON COMER LAW FIRM 303 Main Ave., Ste. A Northport, AL 35476 Phone: (205) 759-3939 Fax: (205) 759-3931 E-mail: jmikecomer@yahoo.com - and - Stanley J. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY & MURPHY, LLC P.O. Box 3163 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 DIAMOND RESORTS: "Finazzo" Files Suit Over False Advertisements --------------------------------------------------------------- MATT DANIEL FINAZZO AND JANET LOUISE FINAZZO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL CLUB, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-02256 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2016), accuses Defendant of making and advertising false promises and statements with regards to its timeshare contracts. Defendant is in the vacation ownership industry, and sells timeshare contracts to consumers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, 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 abacon@toddflaw.com DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Davenport's TCPA Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the Sumner Davenport class action. On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on their cellular and residential telephones without their express consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). On March 9, 2016, Sumner Davenport was substituted as lead plaintiff for Polly Hansen. The Company will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff. Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment services company. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Case Proceeds to Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery will now proceed in the case, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al. On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss filed by the other networks, including the Company. Discovery will now proceed. The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiffs. Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment services company. DRDGOLD: May Appeal Certification, Transmissibility of Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- DRDGOLD Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in the Silicosis Litigation, the Supreme Court of Appeal has granted the DRDGOLD Respondents leave to appeal on both the certification and transmissibility of damages. In January 2013, DRDGOLD, ERPM ("the DRDGOLD Respondents") and 23 other mining companies ("the Mining Companies") were served with a court application for a class action by alleged former mineworkers and dependants of deceased mineworkers. In the pending application the applicants allege that the Mining Companies and the DRDGOLD Respondents conducted underground mining operations in a negligent manner that caused occupational lung diseases. The matter was heard in October 2015. On May 13, 2016, the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg ("Court") handed down judgment in respect of the class action certification in terms of which the applicants sought certification of two industry-wide classes: a silicosis class and a tuberculosis class, both of which cover current and former underground mineworkers who have contracted the respective diseases (or the dependants of mineworkers who died of those diseases). In terms of the judgment, the Court ordered the certification of a single class action comprising two separate and distinct classes -- a silicosis class and a tuberculosis class. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") was filed and served at the Court by the DRDGOLD Respondents (as well as the Mining Companies) on June 3, 2016 in respect of inter alia the transmissibility of damages. On June 23, 2016, the Court granted leave to appeal to the SCA against inter alia the transmissibility of damages. On July 15, 2016, the DRDGOLD Respondents filed and served its petition to the SCA in respect of the certification issue. The notice of appeal in respect of the transmissibility of damages was filed and served on July 25, 2016. On September 13, 2016, the SCA granted the DRDGOLD Respondents leave to appeal on both the certification and transmissibility of damages. "It is not possible at this stage to ascertain what the probable outcome of this case will be and how it will affect our business, operating results and financial condition," the Company said. EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Settles Charleston Residents' Spill Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a proposed settlement has been reached between Charleston residents and a chemical company accused of not doing enough to safeguard West Virginia's capital city from a spill that polluted the drinking water of thousands of people in 2014. According to court officials, attorneys for Eastman Chemical and Charleston-area residents and businesses proposed the settlement. Eastman is producer of a coal-cleaning agent that spilled. It is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver. Its terms are sealed. The settlement would apply in the class- action suit to about 225,000 people and more than 7,000 businesses whose tap water was contaminated and who were advised for days not to use it. Eastman Chemical did not reply to requests for comment on Oct. 26. Anthony Majestro, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said it would apply to all state and federal court claims and will be unsealed after trial or settlement of class-action claims against West Virginia American Water. Those settlement talks were continuing on Oct. 26, he said. Judge Copenhaver postponed the trial against the water company to Oct. 28. It had been set to begin on Oct. 27. The chemical leaked from a storage tank of Freedom Industries into the Elk River in January 2014, about 1.5 miles upstream from the water system's intake, preventing the capital and nearby areas from using tap water for days. Businesses temporarily shut, hundreds went to emergency rooms complaining of nausea and rashes, and authorities later adopted more stringent inspections of aboveground storage tanks. Days after the spill, Freedom filed for bankruptcy. Judge Copenhaver certified the class-action suit a year ago for the plaintiffs, saying they were mostly residents whose water supply was interrupted, employees who lost wages during business closures and others impacted in varying ways by the disaster. The suit alleged the water company was unprepared for the spill and that Eastman Chemical didn't advise Freedom of the dangers of the coal-cleaning agent. Laura Martin, a spokeswoman for West Virginia American Water, said the water company only began lifting a do-not-use order on tap water between four and nine days after the spill once tests showed the chemical had flushed from the water supply. The company's multiple systems provide water to about 560,000 people in West Virginia. The system for greater Charleston was the only one affected. She said the claims against the company are "without merit." Eastman produced the coal-cleaning chemical that leaked from the Freedom Industries tank. The suit claims the company didn't test the corrosive chemical MCHM properly or warn about possible effects on human health or tanks used to store it. In court filings, Eastman said it wasn't negligent, didn't violate environmental laws and complied with federal guidelines for testing the chemical it sold to Freedom Industries. In late September, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board released a draft report on the spill, saying it found no documentation of inspections by Freedom Industries that would have identified corrosion in its leaky aboveground tank. It also said Freedom lacked leak detection or prevention systems. West Virginia lawmakers have imposed new inspection and containment requirements on above-ground storage tanks. In February, Former Freedom Industries officials Gary Southern and Dennis Farrell were sentenced to a month in federal prison on pollution charges. Four others received probation. On Oct. 24 Judge Copenhaver ordered a separate trial for claims against them. EXPEDIA INC: Defending Against Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the Buckeye Tree Lodge Lawsuit. An Initial Case Management Conference is set for Nov. 22, 2016 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, San Francisco. On Nov. 3, 2016, the Hon. Vince Chhabria granted a Stipulation selecting Mediation to be completed within 90 days. On August 17, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of California against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz and Trivago relating to alleged false advertising. Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-SK (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California). The putative class is comprised of hotels and other providers of overnight accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia defendants' websites with whom the Expedia defendants did not have a booking agreement during the relevant time period. The complaint asserts claims against the Expedia defendants for violations of the Lanham Act, the California Business & Professions Code, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment and restitution. The Defendants are represented in the case by: Simon J. Frankel, Esq. Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: 415 591 6000 E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com clannin@cov.com - and - Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418 Tel: 650 632 4700 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel. FACEBOOK INC: "Letizia" Suit Alleges Inflated Viewing Statistics ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOM LETIZIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; MARK FIERRO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and GREG AGUSTIN JR. individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 though 20, inclusive., Case No. 3:16- cv-06232 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2016), alleges that Facebook mislead Plaintiffs and others similarly situated by misrepresenting that consumers were viewing purchased advertisements for a longer duration than actually viewed. Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com-- operates a social networking website that allows registered users to create profiles, upload photos and videos, send messages and keep in touch with friends, family and colleagues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Eglet, Esq. Robert M. Adams, Esq. Erica D. Entsminger, Esq. EGLET PRINCE 400 South Seventh St., Ste. 400 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 450-5400 Fax: (702) 450-5451 E-mail: eservice@egletwall.com - and - Joseph A. Motta, Esq. RUEB & MOTTA 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 880 Concord, CA 94520 Phone: (925) 602- 3400 Fax: (925) 602-0622 FHG REALTY: Crawford et al. Allege Violation of FLSA, NJ Wage Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA CRAWFORD, JESSICA HOWLEY, DANIELLE LAWRENCE, COLLEEN MONAGHAN-GIRARDO, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FHG REALTY URBAN RENEWAL, LLC d/b/a THE RIVERWINDS RESTAURANT, JNB RIVERWINDS, INC., FOTIOS FARMAKIS, GEORGE DRAKOS, and HELENA BALIS, Case No. 1:16-cv-07797 (D.N.J., October 25, 2016), alleges that Defendants systematically and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay its waitstaff the federal minimum required cash wage of $2.13 per hour. Defendant FHG Realty Urban Renewal, LLC d/b/a The Riverwinds Restaurant is a restaurant located at 1075 Riverwinds Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08086. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew A. Luber, Esq. MCOMBER & MCOMBER P.C. 30 S. Maple Avenue Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 985-9800 Fax: (732) 530-8545 E-mail: mal@njlegal.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com FIDELITY RESOURCES: "Onyenze" Lawsuit Invokes FLSA, Md. Wage Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ONYENZE, 2001 Homewood Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Resident of Baltimore City, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. FIDELITY RESOURCES, INCORPORATED 1045 Taylor Avenue Suite 206 Parkville, Maryland 21234 Serve: Chris Duru 6505 Sanzo Road Apartment F Pikesville, Maryland 21209, Case No. 1:16-cv-03543-GLR (D. Md., October 25, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act; unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law; and unpaid wages, interest, treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Defendant provides community-based services to persons with special needs. Defendant's business centers on supplying home healthcare and supervisory care services to these persons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davi, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-845 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com GALLATIN COUNTY: Faces "Crawford" Suit Under FLSA, Ken. Wage Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD CRAWFORD AND RACHAEL CRAWFORD individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GALLATIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY Serve Ken McFarland County Judge Executive Gallatin County Courthouse 200 Washington Street Warsaw, Kentucky 41095, Case No. 2:16-cv-00188-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ken., October 25, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. Defendant, through its Gallatin County Emergency Medical Service employees, provides professional transportation of sick and injured individuals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald E. Johnson Jr., SCHACHTER HENDY & JOHNSON, PSC 909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Ste. #210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Phone: 859-578-4444 Fax: 859-578-4440 E-mail: rjohnson@pschachter.com - and - Molly E. Nephew, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. David H. Grounds, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 436-1800 Fax: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com mnephew@johnsonbecker.com GEN ALHAMBRA: "Dunkijacobsnolton" Claims Illegal Payroll Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY DUNKIJACOBSNOLTON, an individual, v. GEN ALHAMBRA, LLC, a limited liability company; GEN RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a limited liability company; GEN TORRANCE, LLC, a limited liability company; GEN CERRITOS, LLC, a limited liability company; GEN CHINO HILLS, LP, a limited liability partnership; GEN NORTHRIDGE, LP, a limited liability partnership; GEN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LP, a limited liability partnership; GEN ROWLAND HEIGHTS, LP, a limited liability partnership; GEN SAN JOSE, LP, a limited liability partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC-6 38492 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, October 25, 2016), was brought on behalf of all similarly situated Plaintiffs for Defendants' alleged illegal payroll policies and practices. GEN ALHAMBRA, LLC is a mid-sized restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas W. Perlman, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Phone: (310) 961-9600 Fax: (310)961-9094 E-mail: douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com GENERAL MILLS: "Salamanca" False Ad Suit Moved to Northern Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned EDWARD SALAMANCA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., CASE No. 0:16- cv-03616-JNE-HB, (August 24, 2016) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota from the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, according to an October 24, 2016 case docket. The case alleges false, misleading, and deceptive advertising of Nature Valley products as "Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats." GENERAL MILLS, INC. is a global manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer foods sold through retail stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 433-4949 Fax: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: mram@rocklaw.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com amcentee@terrellmarshall.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 687-8291 Fax: (212) 687-8292 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com GNC HOLDINGS: $9.5 Million Settlement of "Brewer" Case Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the federal court has approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the case by Charles Brewer with prejudice. In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims. In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class. In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in September 2015. On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in the aggregate, including attorneys' fees and costs. Following a hearing on August 23, 2016, the Court approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2 million previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015. GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and performance products, including protein, performance supplements, weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens, wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other general merchandise. GNC HOLDINGS: "Naranjo" Class Suit in Calif. Underway ----------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on February 29, 2012, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations. As of September 30, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. GNC is represented in the case by Susan L. Germaise -- sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods LLP. GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and performance products, including protein, performance supplements, weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens, wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other general merchandise. GNC HOLDINGS: Judgment in "Chevalier" Wage Action Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has taken an appeal from the adverse judgment in the class action by Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the quarter ended September 30, 2016 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payments; that petition is pending. The Company appealed from the adverse judgment; the appeal is pending. GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and performance products, including protein, performance supplements, weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens, wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other general merchandise. HELLER AND FRISONE: "Merritt" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE MERRITT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HELLER AND FRISONE, LTD., Case No. 2016-CH-13995 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, October 26, 2016), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending debt collection letters to Plaintiff and purported Class members, in which Defendant failed to disclose that any information obtained as a result of the letter will be used for the purpose of collecting the debt. HELLER AND FRISONE, LTD. is a debt collection law firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr, Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyszim.com amy@attorneyszim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorneyzim.com - and - Rusty A. Payton, Esq. PAYTONDANN 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 702-1000 E-mail: payton@paytondann.com HOPE HARDISON: Faces "Ross" Sued Over Fiduciary Duties Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- John Sterling Ross, and all other individuals similarly situated v. Hope Hardison, Timothy J. Sloan, David A. Hoyt, Michael J. Heid, Frank Codel, and Justin C. Thornton, Case No. 0:16-cv-03595- JNE-FLN (D. Minn., October 24, 2016), is brought on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Wells Fargo 401(k) Plan, to recover millions of dollars of damage suffered in their retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to them relating to the recent Wells Fargo Fake Account Scandal. Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company with its headquarters in San Francisco, California, which provides banking, investments, insurance, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance products and services. Hope Hardison was the Director of Human Resources of Wells Fargo, and later also became the Company's Chief Administrative Officer. Timothy J. Sloan was the Head of Wholesale Banking at Wells Fargo from May 15, 2014 through the end of the Class Period. David A. Hoyt was the Head of Wholesale Banking at Wells Fargo from the beginning of the Class Period until May 15, 2014. Michael J. Heid was the Head of Home Lending at Wells Fargo from the beginning of the Class Period through September 30, 2015. Frank Codel was the Head of Home Lending at Wells Fargo from October 1, 2015 through the end of the Class Period. Justin C. Thornton is and was the Director of Compensation and Benefits at Wells Fargo. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas J. Nill, Esq. DOUGLAS J. NILL, PLLC 2050 Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801 Telephone: (612) 573-3669 Facsimile: (612) 330-0959 E-mail: dnill@farmlaw.com - and - Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq. Edward H. Glenn, Esq. ZAMANSKY LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suit by Home Depot -------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has been named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home Depot. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that we, our co-defendants and other alleged co- conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO2 sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased TiO2 directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. On December 13, 2013, we and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement. We paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our financial statements. "On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. On February 26, 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation and subsequently paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our financial statements. "We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of products made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO2. On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state. "On August 23, 2016, we were named as a defendant in a fourth civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home Depot. Home Depot is an Indirect Purchaser primarily through paints it purchasers from various manufacturers. Home Depot makes the same claims as the Direct and Indirect Purchasers. "The plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchasers claims seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us. Because of the overall complexity of these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have made no accrual with respect to these claims." INGRAM MICRO: No Response Yet to Scheiner Class Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------ Ingram Micro Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Company and the other defendants to the Scheiner class action suit in Delaware have not yet been required to respond to the complaint or the motion for expedited proceedings, but the Company believes the suit is without merit. On March 8, 2016, a putative stockholder class action suit captioned Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc. et al., 30-2016-00839447- CU-SL-CXC CXC, was filed in the Superior Court in Orange County, California. The complaint named as defendants Ingram Micro, its directors, Tianjin Tianhai and Merger Subsidiary. The complaint asserted that Ingram Micro's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, by agreeing to supposedly unfair deal protection devices and by allegedly acting in a self- interested manner. The complaint also generally alleged that Tianjin Tianhai, Ingram Micro and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification and injunctive relief blocking consummation of the merger. On May 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On May 17, 2016, the court indicated that it would dismiss the action as requested. On May 25, 2016, plaintiff refiled his lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware with a motion for expedited proceedings. The Delaware complaint reasserts the claims raised in the California complaint against Ingram Micro, its directors, Tianjin Tianhai and merger sub, and further alleges that Ingram Micro's directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into confidentiality agreements containing standstill provisions with interested parties. In addition, the Delaware complaint alleges that Ingram Micro's May 19, 2016 proxy statement failed to disclose material information concerning (1) the sales process and (2) the financial analysis performed by the Board's financial advisor. The Delaware complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and injunctive relief blocking consummation of the merger. On June 2, 2016, Ingram Micro filed a Schedule 14A with supplemental disclosures to its proxy statement. Ingram Micro and the other defendants have not yet been required to respond to the Delaware complaint or the motion for expedited proceedings. Ingram Micro believes this action is without merit. Ingram Micro delivers a full spectrum of global technology and supply chain services to businesses around the world. Deep expertise in technology solutions, mobility, cloud, and supply chain solutions enables its business partners to operate efficiently and successfully in the markets they serve. INTERSIL CORP: Faces "Zucker" Stock Suit Over Sale to Renesas ------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE ZUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERSIL CORPORATION, NECIP SAYINER, DONALD MACLEOD, MERCEDES JOHNSON, SOHAIL KHAN, GREG LANG, ERNIE MADDOCK, and FORREST NORROD, Defendants, Case No. 12862- (Del. Ch., October 31, 2016), arises for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Defendants arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Renesas Electronics Corp. Intersil Corp. develops power management and precision analog technology for computing, consumer, and industrial markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. 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 - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 JEFFREY STEIN: "Cabezas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- MAYRA CABEZAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JEFFREY STEIN SALON NYC EAST 78, INC., JEFFREY STEIN SALON NORTHEAST, INC., JEFFREY STEIN SALON NORTH, INC., JEFFREY STEIN SALON SOUTH, INC., JEFFREY STEIN SALON EAST INC., and JEFFREY MERMELSTEIN a/k/a JEFFREY MURMELSTEIN and a/k/a JEFFREY STEIN, Case No. 1:16-cv-08385 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and alleged unlawful wage deductions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York Wage Payment Act. Defendants operate hair salons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC One Penn Plaza 250 West 34th Street, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 382-1600 E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com KING CABLE: Faces "Pavoni" Suit Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO PAVONI, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. KING CABLE CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Florida Corporation, and ADRIAN J. KING, JR., individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24541-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees over unpaid overtime wages in violation of under the laws of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act. King Cable Construction Corporation is a water sewer and utility lines construction company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Phone: (305) 308 - 5619 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Phone: (305) 773 - 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Reached in EoTech Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that the parties in the EoTech class action lawsuits have reached a settlement in principle to resolve the allegations in these cases. In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District of Oregon. In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the Company. In August of 2016, all five cases were consolidated into a single, putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaints allege that the Company's EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the allegations in these cases. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. The anticipated costs of this settlement are reflected in the Company's financial results. L-3 Communications is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image intensification equipment and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. The customers include the United States (U.S.) Department of Defense (DoD) and its prime contractors, U.S. Government intelligence agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), foreign governments, and domestic and international commercial customers. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Certification Motion Pending ------------------------------------------------------ L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Securities Class Action remains pending before the District Court. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, and fees and expenses. On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has commenced. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is pending before the District Court. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 Communications is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image intensification equipment and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. The customers include the United States (U.S.) Department of Defense (DoD) and its prime contractors, U.S. Government intelligence agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), foreign governments, and domestic and international commercial customers. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 401(k) Plan Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that the Company is defending against a 401(k) Plan Class Action. On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored 401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2016. As amended, the complaint alleges that certain of the Company's officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company's stock available as an investment alternative under the plan during a period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 Communications is a prime contractor in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image intensification equipment and security and detection systems. L-3 is also a provider of a broad range of communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. The customers include the United States (U.S.) Department of Defense (DoD) and its prime contractors, U.S. Government intelligence agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), foreign governments, and domestic and international commercial customers. LEGEND SENIOR: "Kilgore" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Donna Kilgore, Chris Townsend, Shelly Jones, Cindy Dimit, Karen Walker, Andre Henderson, Rodney Nesbitt, Cathy Coover, Bouchaid Kbabra, Kim Praytor, Tonya Hodges- Harris, Teresa Ooten, Scott Slemp, Kristi Sanders, Lori Wieland, Valerie Morrison, and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Legend Senior Living LLC, Case No. CJ-2016-5069, was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01230-R to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Legend Senior Living LLC operates Independent Living, Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Nursing Home residences in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacque L. Pearsall, Esq. JACQUE PEARSALL PLLC 3030 NW Expressway, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Telephone: (405) 241-9476 Facsimile: (405) 842-0079 E-mail: jacquepearsall@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary P. Snyder, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N Robinson Ave, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 239-6649 Facsimile: (405) 272-5943 E-mail: mary.snyder@crowedunlevy.com - and - Tanya S. Bryant, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N Robinson Ave, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7720 Facsimile: (405) 272-5918 E-mail: tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com LENDINGTREE INC: Class Notice Now Complete in "Dijkstra" -------------------------------------------------------- LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the case, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), has been approved by the district court judge and class notice and administration requirements are now complete. In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June 2014. In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the amount of $2.8 million (the "Class Damages Award"). HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. In July 2015, the district court ordered that the Class Damages Award be allocated such that two-thirds of the Class Damages Award would be paid to the class members and one-third of the Class Damages would be paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys. In addition, the court ordered that HLC reimburse the class for attorneys' fees by making an incremental payment of $389,500 attorneys' fee award be paid by HLC to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The judge also awarded prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs. On July 30, 2015, the district court judge entered a final judgment order in this matter. On August 27, 2015, HLC filed its notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the final judgment, the order granting attorneys' fees, and the orders on class damages, the pretrial conference, motions and class certification. In June 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $1.9 million with respect to such matters. Such settlement was approved by the district court judge in the third quarter of 2016 and class notice and administration requirements are now complete. During the three months ended September 30, 2016, the Company reversed $1.3 million of the originally established liability for this matter. LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Still Faces 2 Class Suits in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending two putative class action lawsuits in Alabama. The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014, and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama. These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center underwent improper interventional cardiology procedures. One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21, 2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding the medical necessity of that procedure. The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015 also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, seeks certification of a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut. This action asserts, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys' fees. In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S. District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending resolution of these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered an order granting the requested stay of discovery. On November 17, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Alabama filed a Report and Recommendation that the RICO claim be dismissed with prejudice, and that the court not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, resulting in those claims being dismissed without prejudice. By Order dated March 28, 2016, the United States District Court Judge adopted in full the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate, dismissing with prejudice the RICO claim and refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. In a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Additionally, the Company, and two of its subsidiaries, including Raleigh General Hospital, as well as Dr. Kenneth Glaser, have been named in 82 individual lawsuits filed in the circuit court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. These lawsuits allege that patients at Raleigh General Hospital underwent unnecessary interventional cardiology procedures. Through September 30, 2016, one additional patient has notified Raleigh General Hospital that he intends to file a lawsuit against the hospital. The lawsuits identified above variously seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other available damages. Additional claims, including claims involving patients to whom the Company did not send notice, have been threatened and may be asserted against the Company or the hospital. Any present or future claims that are ultimately successful could result in the Company and/or the hospitals being found liable and the government investigations may also result in damages, fines and penalties. Such liability, damages and penalties could be material. The Company accrues an estimate for a contingent liability when losses are both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company reviews its accruals each quarter and adjusts them to reflect the impact of developments, advice of legal counsel and other information pertaining to a particular matter. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company recorded an accrual for loss contingencies for cardiology-related lawsuits, which resulted in a net expense of $24.7 million, $15.5 million net of income taxes, or $0.35 loss per diluted share. LifePoint owns and operates community hospitals, regional health systems, physician practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities. LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Youth Justice Coalition, Peter Arrellano, Jose Reza, for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals v. City of Los Angeles, Mike Feuer, Charlie Beck, and Does 1 through 10, in their official and individual capacities, Case No. 2:16-cv-07932 (C.D. Cal., October 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act. City of Los Angeles is a Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. Mike Feuer is the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles. Charlie Beck is the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Youth Justice Coalition, Peter Arrellano, Jose Reza are pro se plaintiffs. LOVE MY CAR: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Henri Alexander Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Love My Car Carwash, Inc., Antoine Haddad a/k/a Tony Haddad, and Robert Haddad, Case No. 8:16-cv-03522-GJH (D. Md., October 24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a car shop located at 19600 Walter Johnson Road, Germantown, MD 20874. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zelikovitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC 519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 803-6083 Facsimile: (202) 683-6102 E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the litigation relating to products liability, Lumber Liquidators, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude expert reports and testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to deconstructive testing are pending before the Eastern District of Virginia. Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the "Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which although not identical are generally similar, including negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act violations, state unfair competition act violations, state deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and various damages, including restitution, actual, compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from the Company in these class actions. On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court and ultimately, the Company expects all federal class actions involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the "MDL"). Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion. The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual basis. Fact discovery has closed and expert discovery is now proceeding in this matter. On August 1, 2016, Lumber Liquidators, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' First Amended Representative Complaint in the MDL and filed a motion to exclude expert reports and testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to deconstructive testing. Both motions are currently pending before the Eastern District of Virginia. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $26MM Settlement Up for Nov. 17 Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement of the securities litigation is subject to further consideration at the settlement hearing scheduled to be held on November 17, 2016 and to several contingencies including final court approval. On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its founder, former Chief Executive Officer and President, former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust ("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and President and its former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants"). On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities Class Action Litigation"). The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to their compliance with the Lacey Act, the chemical content of certain of their wood products, and their supply chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but, on December 21, 2015, the court denied this motion. On April 27, 2016, the Defendants entered into an agreement in principle, a Memorandum of Understanding ("Securities Class Action MOU"), with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action. On June 15, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive settlement agreement (the "Securities Class Action Stipulation") and, on July 7, 2016, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval for the Securities Class Action Stipulation. The terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation were consistent with those of the Securities Class Action MOU. Under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company, through its insurers, will contribute $26,000,000 to a settlement fund that will be used to compensate individuals who purchased the Company's shares during the period from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company will issue 1 million shares of its common stock to the settlement fund with a value of approximately $19,670,000 based on the $19.67 closing price of the Company's common stock on September 30, 2016. The Company has classified the loss contingency of $45,670,000 as accrued securities class action and the expected insurance proceeds of $26,000,000 as insurance receivable on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. The amount of loss associated with the issuance of shares of common stock as a part of the settlement will be determined based on the trading value of the shares on the date of issuance, which could increase the recognized loss if the trading value increases or result in a gain if the trading value decreases. The Company will record the fair value of the expected number of shares to be issued in its condensed consolidated balance sheet based on the closing price of its common stock as of the reporting date until the liability is settled. The Company recorded an expense of $4,250,000 within selling, general and administrative expense during the third quarter of 2016 to reflect the increase in the closing price of the Company's common stock between June 30, 2016 and September 30, 2016. The settlement is subject to further consideration at the settlement hearing scheduled to be held on November 17, 2016 and to several contingencies including final court approval. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The ultimate resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results of operations. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Proceeding in "Gold" Action --------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery in the class action lawsuit by Dana Gold is now proceeding. On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold Plaintiffs"). The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding a hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016. In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of individuals in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product, as well as seven state subclasses of individuals who are residents of California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household use. Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company's actions violate the law and that the Company is financially responsible for notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of its profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members. The Company filed its answer to the Third Amended Complaint on February 3, 2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding. The Company disputes the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork. MASTERCARD INC: Deposition Discovery to Commence in December 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that deposition discovery in the U.S. Interchange Litigation is scheduled to commence in December 2016. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections included a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement. Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. Mastercard had anticipated that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. Mastercard has executed settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for one state court action in New Mexico) in front of the same federal district court that approved the merchant class settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim. Deposition discovery in these actions and the class action is scheduled to commence in December 2016. MASTERCARD INC: Trial in British Columbia Case Set for Sept. 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the Canadian Interchange Litigation, several of the merchants' claims in the British Columbia case have been allowed to proceed on a class basis, and a trial date has been set for September 2018. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of- sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. The Quebec suit was later amended to include the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. Additional purported class action complaints have been commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) several of the merchants' claims in the British Columbia case have been allowed to proceed on a class basis, and a trial date has been set for September 2018, (2) the class certification hearing in the Quebec suit is scheduled for November 2017 and (3) the Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta suits are temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds. MASTERCARD INC: Facing U.K. Consumers Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a proposed collective action has been filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of U.K. consumers seeking damages for intra-EEA and domestic U.K. interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by merchants between 1992 and 2008. In July 2015, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections related to Mastercard's interregional interchange fees and central acquiring rules within the European Economic Area. The Statement of Objections, which follows an investigation opened in 2013, includes preliminary conclusions concerning the anticompetitive effects of these practices. The European Commission has indicated it intends to seek fines if these conclusions are subsequently confirmed. Although the Statement of Objections does not quantify the level of fines, it is possible that they could be substantial. In April 2016, Mastercard submitted a response to the Statement of Objections disputing the Commission's preliminary conclusions and participated in a related oral hearing in May 2016. In the United Kingdom, beginning in May 2012, a number of retailers filed claims or threatened litigation against Mastercard seeking damages for alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to Mastercard's cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic interchange fees (the "U.K. Merchant claimants"), with claimed purported damages exceeding $1 billion. The U.K. Merchant Claimants (including all resolved matters) represent approximately 40% of Mastercard's U.K. interchange volume over the relevant damages period. Additional merchants have filed or threatened litigation with respect to interchange rates in Europe (the "Pan-European claimants") for purported damages exceeding $1 billion. In June 2015, Mastercard entered into a settlement with one of the U.K. Merchant claimants for $61 million, recorded as a provision for litigation settlement. Mastercard has submitted statements of defense to the remaining retailers' claims disputing liability and damages. Following the conclusion of a trial for liability and damages for one of the U.K. merchant cases, in July 2016, the tribunal issued a judgment against Mastercard for damages. Mastercard has sought permission from the court to appeal this judgment. Mastercard recorded a litigation provision of $107 million in the second quarter of 2016, that includes the amount of the judgment and related legal fees and costs. In October 2016, a liability hearing concluded in a separate action brought on behalf of 11 merchants. If liability is found in this action, the hearing related to damages is not scheduled to start until early 2018. With respect to the remaining U.K. Merchant claimants' litigations, Mastercard believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur a loss and estimates the lower end of a negotiated settlement could result in a loss of approximately $300 million. This revised estimate involves significant judgment and may change from time to time due to the varying stages of the U.K. Merchant claimants' litigations, the filing of claims by additional U.K. merchants, progress in settlement negotiations and the potential uncertainty of numerous unresolved legal issues. As such, subsequent progress in negotiations and/or decisions by courts could increase or decrease this estimate. The above estimate relates only to potential settlements, and Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability, if any, if the remaining U.K. Merchant claimant litigations are litigated to a final decision. At this time, Mastercard is unable to estimate a probable loss for the matters, if any, and accordingly has not accrued for any loss. In September 2016, a proposed collective action was filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of U.K. consumers seeking damages for intra-EEA and domestic U.K. interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by merchants between 1992 and 2008. The complaint, which seeks to leverage the European Commission's 2007 decision on intra-EEA interchange fees, claims damages in an amount that exceeds œ14 billion (approximately $18 billion). The court has scheduled a case management conference for November 2016. MASTERCARD INC: High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Dec. 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from Mastercard and its co- defendants in the ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints for December 2016. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non- bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. In March 2016, certain of the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the nondiscrimination rules pending the outcome of the litigation. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments from Mastercard and its co- defendants in both cases, which is scheduled for December 2016. MASTERCARD INC: Late 2017 Trial for EMV Suit v Network Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Liability Shift Litigation against the Network Defendants is now proceeding with a trial currently scheduled for late 2017. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege the damages would be the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. The case against the Network Defendants is now proceeding with a trial currently scheduled for late 2017. MCCORMICK & CO: "Holve" Suit Alleges False Ad of Natural Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN HOLVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Case No. 6:16-cv-06702 (W.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), alleges that Defendant has unlawfully, fraudulently, unfairly, misleadingly, and/or deceptively represented that several varieties of its McCormick spice and seasoning products are "Natural," when they are not natural because they contain synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients. McCormick & Company, Incorporated -- http://www.mccormickcorporation.com/-- manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 5400 S. University Drive Davie, FL 33328 Phone: (954) 889-3359 E-mail: jeggnatz@ELPLawyers.com - and - David M. Kaplan, Esq. DAVID M. KAPLAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 401 Penbrooke Dr., Bldg. 2, Ste. B Penfield, NY 14526 Phone: (585) 330-2222 Fax: (585) 445-6767 E-mail: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com MCDONALD'S: Settles Franchise Workers' Wage Case for $3.75MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Sudhin Thanawala, writing for The Associated Press, reports that McDonald's has agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a federal lawsuit that sought to hold the company liable for allegations that a franchise owner in the San Francisco Bay Area cheated hundreds of workers out of wages and overtime. A lawyer for the workers on Oct. 31 called the settlement agreement filed in court Oct. 28 a historic victory for hundreds of workers but the company said it settled to avoid ongoing legal costs. The lawsuit filed in 2014 in federal court in San Francisco is among several suits in recent years that have sought a court order designating McDonald's as the joint employer of workers at its franchise restaurants. Franchised locations account for the vast majority of McDonald's more than 14,000 U.S restaurants. Joint employer status would make the company and not just franchisees responsible for working conditions at restaurants. The National Labor Relations Board is also arguing that McDonald's should be considered a joint employer in a separate and closely watched case over claims McDonald's workers were subject to retaliation for taking part in protests and strikes seeking wages of $15 an hour and a union. A trial in that case began in March in New York. A judge in the San Francisco suit ruled last year that McDonald's was not a joint employer. But he opened a different path that could be used to hold McDonald's liable for the alleged labor violations of the franchise owner by allowing the workers to argue they believed McDonald's was their employer. Joe Sellers, an attorney for the workers, said on Oct. 31 that the $3.75 million settlement was "historic" because it marked the first time that McDonald's committed to paying workers for labor violations in a franchisee-operated store. McDonald's spokeswoman Terri Hickey said in a statement that the company reached a settlement to avoid the costs and disruption of continued litigation. "As this court previously ruled, McDonald's is not a joint employer of its independent franchisees' employees," she said. "With this agreement, McDonald's reconfirms that it is not the employer of or responsible for employees of its independent franchisees." The lawsuit alleged workers at the five Bay Area McDonald's franchises did not receive all their earned wages through September 2013, overtime for overnight shifts, required meal periods and rest breaks and reimbursement for time and money spent ironing and cleaning their uniforms. It accused McDonald's of controlling the terms and conditions of employment at the franchises in part by insisting that the owner strictly monitor and curtail labor costs. Sellers said more than 800 workers will benefit from the settlement. Attorneys previously reached a settlement with the franchise owner. Eligible workers will be compensated based on the number of hours they worked -- calculations that have yet to be completed. MDL 2743: 16 Abrasion Suits Transferred to Virginia --------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and consolidating 16 of the federal abrasion class actions to the district court in the Eastern District of Virginia. "We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Virginia is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Lumber Liquidators is based in this district in Toano, Virginia, and relevant documents and witnesses likely will be found there. We are confident that Judge Anthony J. Trenga, who presides over MDLNo. 2627, which involves allegedlyinappropriate emissions of formaldehyde from the same laminate flooring and some of the same plaintiffs as here, will steer this litigation on a prudent course," said the Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chair of the Panel on Multi-District Litigation. On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and two amended complaints were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs") sought to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate flooring products from Defendant for personal use in their homes," or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana. The products that are the subject of these complaints are part of the same products at issue in the MDL. The SAC alleges violations of each of these states' consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment. The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, sought an order certifying the action as a class action, an order adopting the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an order appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution of all monies it received from the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs and class members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and punitive damages. The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the California plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs) and ordered that all the non-California plaintiffs (collectively, the "Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs") be dropped from the action with leave to re-file. Many of the Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs re-filed separate complaints in the Central District of California within the required 60-day period, which were then transferred to the district court located in the place of residence of each Non- California Abrasion Plaintiff. These complaints included similar causes of action and sought similar relief as those of the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and consolidating sixteen of the federal abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. In a subsequent conditional transfer order, the MDL Panel transferred other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company will seek to have any additional related cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese- Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Company disputes the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs' and the Non- California Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. The cases are: Central District of California ABAD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:15!3795 Middle District of Florida GREEN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 8:16!2142 Northern District of Georgia WEBSTER v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16!260 Western District of Kentucky HENSLEY v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!534 Western District of Louisiana GOODLING v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!1201 District of Massachusetts KUNICKI v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16!11705 Eastern District of Missouri DUNKIN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16!1347 Southern District of Mississippi BOLIN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!00590 District of Nevada RYAN v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!1978 District of New Jersey MANZO v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!5112 Eastern District of New York HOTALING, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!4646 Western District of North Carolina BENNETT v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 1:16!281 Northern District of Ohio LEONARD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 1:16!2091 Eastern District of Oklahoma STRONG v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 6:16!357 Western District of Pennsylvania MCPHERSON v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!1263 Southern District of West Virginia JACKSON v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16!07947 Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, vinyl, bamboo and cork. MID-AMERICAN: "Donner" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2492 -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned GEOFF DONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MID-AMERICAN CONFERENCE and NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-09986 (October 3, 2016) was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and consolidated in IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT - ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION MDL No. 2492 on October 25, 2016. The suit seeks to obtain redress for all persons allegedly injured by Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Ball State University student-athletes. Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including in the MAC and the football program at Ball State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com MIDWEST EXCHANGE: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Serafina Ortiz and Rosa Rogel, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Midwest Exchange Enterprises, Inc., Alejandro Casillas, and Nina Casillas, Case No. 1:16-cv-09951 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a plastics recycling manufacturing company in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Overruled Demurrer in "Schneider" -------------------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a California court has overruled the demurrer to a corrected consolidated complaint. On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants. On August 8, 2016 the Company filed a demurrer to the corrected consolidated complaint. The court overruled the demurrer on October 4, 2016. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications, content and devices while providing their employees with device choice, privacy and a native user experience. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Remand Securities Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a Delaware court has denied plaintiffs' motion to remand a Securities class action lawsuit. On April 15, 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, for the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. In May 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware. In September 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter. MoneyGram offers products and services under its two reporting segments: Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tentative Deal Reached in Suit v. TalentBin -------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a tentative settlement has been reached to resolve all remaining claims in a class action lawsuit against TalentBin, Inc. On or about October 12, 2015, TalentBin, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, was served with notice of a purported consumer class action for allegedly assembling, scoring and sharing candidate profiles in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"). The lawsuit, entitled Eric Halvorson, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15 548270), was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. On or about November 2015, the action was removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:15-cv-05166). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, statutory penalties of between one hundred and one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages and other costs and attorney's fees. On February 23, 2016, the ICRAA claims were dismissed voluntarily. Pursuant to a term sheet executed on or about August 9, 2016, a tentative settlement was reached to resolve all remaining claims subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and approval of the Court. The Company accrued $900,000 related to the settlement term sheet as of September 30, 2016. Monster Worldwide, Inc. has operations that consist of two reportable segments: Careers-North America and Careers- International. Revenue in the Company's segments is primarily earned from the placement of job advertisements on the websites within the Monster network, access to the Monster network of online resume and social profile databases, recruitment media services and other career-related services. The Company's segments provide online services to customers in a variety of industries throughout North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Dagut and Gordon Class Suits Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the Gordon and Dagut class action lawsuits. In September 2016, three putative class actions were filed against the Company and its officers and directors. The first two, Litwin vs. Monster Worldwide, Inc., et. al., 16-cv-11844 and Dagut vs. Monster Worldwide, Inc., et. al., 16-cv-11852, were filed in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts. The third matter, Gordon vs. Giambastiani, et. al., CA No. 12746-VCG, was filed in the Delaware Chancery State Court. Each alleges material misstatements or omissions contained in the Company's Schedule 14D-9 associated with Randstad North America, Inc.'s tender offer for the Company's shares. The Gordon matter further alleges that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, engaging in a flawed deal process and agreeing to an insufficient share price. The respective Plaintiffs in all three matters seek, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the tender offer, or in the alternative, rescission, rescissionary and other damages, as well as various costs and fees including attorney's fees. The Plaintiff in the Gordon case voluntarily withdrew Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and has not moved for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Plaintiff in the Dagut matter withdrew Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction after the Company agreed to further amend its disclosures in its Schedule 14D-9 regarding the Company's discretion to pay additional amounts to its financial advisor. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters and is currently unable to estimate any potential losses. Monster Worldwide, Inc. has operations that consist of two reportable segments: Careers-North America and Careers- International. Revenue in the Company's segments is primarily earned from the placement of job advertisements on the websites within the Monster network, access to the Monster network of online resume and social profile databases, recruitment media services and other career-related services. The Company's segments provide online services to customers in a variety of industries throughout North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. N&M COOLING: "Garcia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. N&M COOLING AND HEATING, INC. d/b/a COOL TODAY, Case No. 8:16- cv-03026-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates a HVAC, plumbing and energy business serving southwest Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #600 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Sullivan" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Thomas Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pac-12 Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02646, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09995 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims. Pac-12 Conference is a collegiate athletic conference that operates in the Western United States. National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Tolbert" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Antjuan Tolbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sun Belt Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-02649, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10000 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims. Sun Belt Conference is a collegiate athletic conference that has been affiliated with the NCAA's Division I National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Towe" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Eric Towe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mid-American Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02629, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09983 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims. Mid-American Conference is a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I collegiate athletic conference with a membership base in the Great Lakes region. National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Washington" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Eric Washington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big 12 Conference and The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16- cv-02358, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09981 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims. Big 12 Conference is a ten-school collegiate athletic conference headquartered in Irving, Texas. National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Winingham, Esq. WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM 2859 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46208 Telephone: (317) 920-6400 Facsimile: (317) 920-6405 E-mail: winingham@wkw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Williams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Chad Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-02622, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09982 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims. National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Wysocki" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Charles Wysocki, indvidually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Coast Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-02652, was transferred from Indiana Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09982 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts personal injury claims. Atlantic Coast Conference is a collegiate athletic conference in the United States of America in which its fifteen member universities compete in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)'s Division I. National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com NCR CORP: Faces "Pederson" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC PEDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NCR CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff was misclassified as exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This Complaint also challenges alleged systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage order against Non- Exempt Project Leader of Defendants. NCR CORPORATION -- https://www.ncr.com/ -- is an American computer hardware, software and electronics company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, 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 abacon@toddflaw.com NIDO CAFFE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ SANTOS MARTINEZ a/k/a SANTOS MARTINEZ NAJARRO and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. NIDO CAFFE 110 LLC d/b/a NI.DO. CAFFE & MOZZARELLA BAR, DAIAN ESCALANTE, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-24538-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2016), alleges that Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. NIDO CAFFE 110 LLC d/b/a NI.DO. CAFFE & MOZZARELLA BAR, owns approximately two other restaurants in the South Florida areas. 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 PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. to Hold Oral Argument on Dec. 8 ------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hold oral argument on a class action appeal on December 8, 2016. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute. "This motion was denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review. The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument on December 8, 2016," the Company said. Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized experience for each listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music. PANDORA MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Sheridan Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuits by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan remains pending. The Company said, "On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations." "On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second Circuit's review of Sirius XM's appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations. "On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a third class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion to dismiss remains pending. "On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a fourth class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision. On March 16, 2016, the district court granted the motion to stay. The motion to dismiss remains pending." Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized experience for each listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music. PANDORA MEDIA: Suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action by Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations. On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Southern District of California. The Company said, "the complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of the California Civil Code, misappropriation, unfair business practices and conversion arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 5, 2016, the district court transferred the case to the federal district court for the Northern District of California." "On October 21, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations." Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized experience for each listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music. PIRIPI VMP: "Shkolnik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Dmitry Shkolnik, and other similarly situated individuals v. Piripi VMP, LLC d/b/a 320 Gastrolounge, J & E Entertainment Group, LLC and Eric Corro, Ricardo Wilson and Agustin Abalo, Case No. 1:16-cv-24467-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Seepersaud Surooj and Kowsilla Surooj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Scott W. Wine, and Michael T. Speetzen, Case No. 0:16-cv-03599- PAM-JSM (D. Minn., October 24, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Polaris Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries design, engineer, manufacture, and market offroad vehicles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and other vehicles for sale in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Devon C. Holstad, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com Devon.Holstad@zimmreed.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com RProngay@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com RIPE JUICE: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Rivas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ripe Juice Bar & Grill, Freshark Franchise Corp., Peter Kambitsis, Elias Kalogiros, and Gabriel Olivera, Case No. 1:16-cv- 05935 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a health food restaurant located at 70-13 Austin St, Forest Hills, NY 11375. Roberto Rivas is a pro se plaintiff. SC MAINTENANCE: "Laguerre" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GIENECE LAGUERRE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. SC MAINTENANCE, INC., a Florida corporation, and STEVEN S. CLEMENTS, an Individual, Case No. 8:16-cv-03031-SCB-AAS (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid back wages, minimum wages, overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. SC MAINTENANCE, INC. had two or more employees handling, selling or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in or produced for commerce, such as cleaning equipment, chemicals and cleaning supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-236-0946 Fax: 407-867-4791 E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com SHANGHAI YINLING: Faces "Siegmund" Suit Over Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Siegmund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Xuelian Bian, Wei Guan, Sidley Austin LLP, Shanghai Yinling Asset Management Co., Ltd., Leading First Capital Limited and Leading World Corporation, Case No. 0:16-cv-62506-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public shareholders of Linkwell Corporation, to enjoin the acquisition of Linkwell by Shanghai Yinling Asset Management Co., Ltd., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Shanghai Yinling Asset Management Co., Ltd. is a Chinese investment company with a principal business in Shanghai, China. Linkwell Corporation is engaged in the development, manufacture, sale and distribution of disinfectant health care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Fischler, Esq. FISCHLER & FRIEDMAN, P.A 1000 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-5778 - and - Charles J. Hecht, Esq. Malcolm T. Brown, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: hecht@whafh.com brown@whafh.com SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss "Sousa" Action Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a shareholder class action remains pending. On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15- 02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants"). On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed with the District of New Jersey by four other purported shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff (the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages. The principal allegation contained in the Complaint is that the Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning the Company's fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance. On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the "Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and the Company filed a reply to the Motion to Transfer on October 13, 2015. On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey granted the Company's Motion to Transfer. Thus, this case will now be litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10657-GAO). On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which is now the operative complaint in this litigation. On June 20, 2016, the Company and the other Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss") and on July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Company filed its reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on August 15, 2016. The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Amended Complaint and does not expect the results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or consolidated financial statements. Sonus Networks is a provider of networked solutions for communications service providers (e.g., telecommunications, wireless and cable service providers) and enterprises to help them advance, protect and unify their communications and improve collaboration. SONY INTERACTIVE: "Moschitti" Alleges Defect in PlayStation 4 ------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC MOSCHITTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:16-cv-06182-JSC (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2016), arises from Sony's alleged concealment of a material manufacturing defect that ultimately causes disc drives in the PlayStation 4 to eject in an infinite loop, rendering the disc drive useless for its intended purpose. Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC is a multinational video game developer, product manufacturer and research and development company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (610) 200-0580 STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Class Action in Texas Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the Verde class action lawsuit in Texas. The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM. The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and others on March 26, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. The putative class consists of all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles model years 1997-2007 equipped with the subject CD. Plaintiff seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1997-2007. Plaintiff alleges this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people. In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that damages are no more than $1,000 per person. A hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was held on November 16, 2015, and the United States District Court has not yet ruled on class certification. On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's indemnification claim; that ruling was later adopted by the United States District Court. Stoneridge is a global designer and manufacturer of highly engineered electrical and electronic components, modules and systems for the automotive, commercial, motorcycle, off-highway and agricultural vehicle markets. STONERIDGE INC: Still Defends "Royal" Class Action in Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case captioned, Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. The putative class consists of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than one million vehicles. Plaintiffs seek recovery of economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in part the Company's and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.'s motions to dismiss, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs' five claims against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the United States District Court's ruling, which was denied. The Company is vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs' allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as well as class action certification. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at September 30, 2016. Stoneridge is a global designer and manufacturer of highly engineered electrical and electronic components, modules and systems for the automotive, commercial, motorcycle, off-highway and agricultural vehicle markets. STORMPROOF INC: "Melo" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO L. MELO and other similarly-situated individuals, v. STORMPROOF INC., GONZALO A. MONTERO, and FERNANDO L. OROZCO individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-24471-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 25, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. STORMPROOF INC. is a manufacturer of impact resistant doors, and windows. STORMPROOF, INC. also provides installations, construction, and remodeling services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Speakes" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SPEAKES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., MICHAEL KALB, and KALYANASUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN, Case No. 1:16-cv- 08318 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2016), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to Defendant's failure to disclose that since 2014, Taro has colluded with other pharmaceutical companies to keep the price of generic products artificially high. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. is a pharmaceutical company that offers prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products focusing on primary areas, including topical creams and ointments, liquids, capsules, and tablets in the dermatological and topical, cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, and anti- inflammatory therapeutic categories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com TRAVIS BUQUET: "Mejia" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO MEJIA, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. TRAVIS BUQUET CONSTRUCTION, LLC, TRAVIS BUQUET HOME BUILDERS, LLC, and TRAVIS BUQUET, Case No. 6:16-cv-01504 (W.D. La., October 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are in the business of building residential and commercial structures throughout the state of Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 534-5005 Fax: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@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 - William H. Beaumont, Esq 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com UBER: Drivers Must be Considered Employees, British Tribunal Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a British tribunal has ruled that Uber drivers should be considered employees, not independent contractors, and are therefore entitled to paid vacation time and a minimum wage. The decision is subject to appeal, which Uber says it will file. But if upheld, it could increase the operating costs for the ride- hailing service and encourage more legal action. The company has run into resistance in many countries in the past, from both regulators and taxi associations. Some have questioned how well it carries out background checks on its drivers and others challenged the legality of using drivers without licenses. Here's a look at some issues Uber has faced around the world. FRANCE The country banned Uber's low-cost UberPop service, in which the drivers do not possess a taxi license, in 2014. Taxi drivers have protested, often violently, against the continued use of the regular Uber service. In June, a French court convicted and fined Uber and two of its executives for deceptive commercial practices and illegal business activity as UberPop continued its activities for months after being banned. U.S. A federal appeals court said in September that Uber drivers for the most part have to resolve claims against the company individually and not through a class action lawsuit. The ruling came in a lawsuit by Uber drivers over the company's background checks, but it also affects drivers in a separate suit who accuse the ride-hailing service of exploiting them by treating them as independent contractors instead of employees. In August, a federal judge rejected Uber's attempt to settle claims by drivers that the company had been exploiting them by treating them as independent contractors instead of employees. The settlement would have given $100 million to about 380,000 drivers. In April 2015, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit shot a 22-year-old man who had opened fire on a group of pedestrians in Chicago. Court records say the man was shooting at pedestrians who were walking in front of the Uber driver's vehicle, and the driver shot the gunman. The driver wasn't charged, as prosecutors said he acted in defense of himself and others. In June 2015, Uber banned its drivers and passengers from carrying guns. CHINA Uber in September agreed to sell its China operations to local rival Didi Chuxing, in return for a 20 percent stake in Didi. In January 2015, the Chinese government had banned drivers of private cars from offering their services through taxi-hailing apps. It then allowed them under new rules. In the spring, police raided Uber offices, seizing thousands of iPhones and other equipment used to run the business. The city's transport commission said it suspected Uber was operating an illegal taxi service without a proper business registration. INDIA New Delhi banned the service temporarily in late 2014 after one of its drivers was found guilty raping a passenger. Uber was found to have failed to carry out proper background checks on the drivers it hired. The service was restored in June 2015. GERMANY A German court in 2015 banned Uber from offering its UberPop service nationwide. The ruling by a state court stems from a suit brought by a German taxi association. NETHERLANDS Dutch prosecutors last year raided the Amsterdam offices of Uber, seizing records as part of an investigation into the UberPop service. Prosecutors said Uber was suspected of breaching a Dutch taxi law with its UberPop app, which a court in 2014 had ruled was illegal. SPAIN A judge in 2014 ordered a halt to Uber services in Spain, saying they represented unfair competition. The Madrid commercial court judge said Uber drivers lacked proper permits to transport passengers. In March, Uber launched a new ride service in Madrid, called UberX, which matches riders with licensed professional drivers. They are not authorized to pick up fares on the street like taxis do. MEXICO Taxi drivers have repeatedly protested against Uber to demand that Mexico City authorities ban the ride service. The drivers said that Uber and other ride-sharing services evade the tax, registration and safety laws that regular cabs are subject to. Uber responded by offering Mexico City commuters free rides for a day, with hashtags that roughly translate as "If Mexico won't stop, Uber won't stop." UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Hoy" Litigation Alleges Violation of ERISA -------------------------------------------------------------- JANCE HOY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-05579-JS (E.D. Pa., October 25, 2016), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and seeks to recover out-of-pocket expenses allegedly incurred for lactation services that should have been covered by the Santander Holdings USA, Inc. Flexible Benefits Plan. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. is a health benefit programs provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Goldich, Esq. Noah Axler, Esq. AXLER GOLDICH LLC One Liberty Place, Suite 3600 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 207-2920 Fax: (267) 319-7901 E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com naxler@axgolaw.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Phone: (860) 526-1100 Fax: (860) 526-1120 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 429-5272 Fax: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com - and - Kolin C. Tang, Esq. Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2550 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 235-2416 Fax: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com csekino@sfmslaw.com U.S. RENAL: "Holguin" Suit Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE HOLGUIN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys General, v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES I through 250, inclusive, Case No. BC-688347 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, October 25, 2016), seeks to recoup, among others, alleged unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC. -- http://www.usrenalcare.com/-- operates a network of outpatient, home, and specialty dialysis centers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562)432-8933 Fax: (562)435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com UNIVERSAL AUTO: "Saghatelian" Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raffik Saghatelian, as an individual; Plaintiff, vs. UNIVERSAL AUTO GROUP dba Glendale Mitsubishi, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 639308 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, October 31, 2016), seeks to recover on behalf of similar others, alleged unpaid overtime under the California Labor Code and Wage Order. UNIVERSAL AUTO GROUP -- http://www.universalautogroup.net/ -- deals used cars. The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Michael Sabzevar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF F. MICHAEL SABZEVAR 16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818)784-1688 Fax: (818)784-3256 - and - Jason D. Ahdoot, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JASON D. AHDOOT 16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (310)359-8340 Fax: (310)359-0290 VONAGE HOLDINGS: Status Report Due Dec. 23 in Merkin & Smith Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a joint status report is due to the District Court by December 23, 2016, in the class action lawsuit by Merkin & Smith, et al. On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014. On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014, the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal. On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration. On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February 29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the district court's order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition for rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending arbitration. A joint status report is due to the District Court by December 23, 2016. Vonage Holdings Corp. is a provider of cloud communications services for business. WAL-MART STORES: "Maestas" Alleges False Ad of Battery Warranty --------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY MAESTAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:16-at-01345 (E.D. Cal., October 31, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged practice of falsely advertising and selling warranties for their car batteries that they have no intention of honoring. WAL-MART STORES, INC. -- http://corporate.walmart.com/-- is engaged in the operation of retail, wholesale and other units in various formats around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, 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 abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com WEST BANCORPORATION: Expects to Pay $250,000 to Settle Iowa Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that West Bank recorded an expense of $250,000 during the quarter, which is the amount West Bank expects to pay to settle a class action lawsuit in Iowa. The Company will seek preliminary court approval of the proposed class action settlement in the fourth quarter of 2016. On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. Plaintiffs, Darla and Jason T. Legg, asserted nonsufficient funds fees charged by West Bank on debit card transactions were usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code and that the sequence West Bank formerly used to post debit card transactions for payment violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies including injunctive relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of bank fees, and attorney fees. The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4, 2014. It dismissed one of Plaintiffs' claims and found that factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two classes for further proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court. On January 22, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court filed two opinions that affirmed and reversed parts of the trial court rulings. The court reversed the trial court by holding the Iowa Consumer Credit Code usury claim and an unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed. Certification of classes on those claims was also reversed. The court affirmed the trial court by holding that the Plaintiffs could proceed with a breach of express contract claim based on a 2006 change in debit card payment sequencing coupled with the alleged lack of notice concerning that change. During the third quarter of 2016, the parties to the lawsuit participated in a mediation and reached a settlement agreement in principle, which has not yet been finalized, executed, or approved by the court. As part of the proposed settlement, West Bank does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing, and the settlement agreement would include a release of all claims brought or that could have been brought in the lawsuit and would result in a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. In the quarter ended September 30, 2016, West Bank recorded an expense of $250,000, which is the amount West Bank expects to pay in the settlement. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to court approval and will require notice to be sent to class members providing them with an opportunity to opt out of the class or object to the settlement. West Bank will seek preliminary court approval of the proposed settlement in the fourth quarter of 2016. WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Orders Attorneys to Revise Spill Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in West Virginia has ordered attorneys in a class-action lawsuit involving a chemical spill that contaminated drinking water in West Virginia in 2014 to revise a tentative settlement. U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver in Charleston was critical of the proposed deal on Oct. 31. He said he's concerned it doesn't make clear that West Virginia American Water Co. won't seek a rate increase to recoup the costs of settling the lawsuit. Judge Copenhaver says those costs must be paid by the company's investors and stockholders, not customers who were spill victims. Judge Copenhaver ordered the parties to return later on Oct. 31. In January 2014, a tank at Freedom Industries in Charleston leaked chemicals into the drinking water supply for 300,000 people, prompting a tap-water ban for days. Lawyers for residents and businesses allege the water company didn't adequately prepare for or respond to the spill. WILLBROS GROUP: Class Suit Over Financial Restatement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is vigorously defending against the remaining allegations in the class action lawsuit related to the Company's "October 21, 2014 Press Release Announcing the Restatement of Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014." After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28, 2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer, Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer. On January 30, 2015, the court named two employee retirement systems as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, captioned In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, on March 31, 2015, adding as a defendant John T. McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had succeeded Mr. Harl. On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified damages and asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance with debt covenants and liquidity, certain financial results, and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure. On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. On July 22, 2016, the Company filed an answer to the suit denying the remaining allegations in the case, which complain of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act regarding internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, and Mr. Harl's departure. The Company is vigorously defending against the remaining allegations, which the Company believes are without merit. The Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. Willbros is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor serving the oil and gas and power industries with offerings that primarily include construction, maintenance and facilities development services. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company said, "In July 2015, a purported shareholder of us filed a putative class and derivative action on behalf of us in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action named as defendants certain members of our Board of Directors as well as Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ), and named us as a nominal defendant. On December 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with our proposed merger with Energy Transfer is false and misleading. As relief, the complaint requested, among other things, an injunction requiring us to make supplemental disclosures and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2015, we moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 7, 2016, the court granted our motion." "Between October 2015 and December 2015, purported shareholders of us filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were consolidated into a single suit on January 13, 2016. This consolidated putative class action lawsuit relates to our proposed merger with Energy Transfer. The complaint asserts various claims against the individual members of our Board of Directors, including that they breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price and by allegedly failing to disclose allegedly material information about the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On March 22, 2016, the court granted the parties' proposed order in the consolidated action to stay the proceedings pending the close of the transaction with Energy Transfer. The plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. "A purported shareholder filed a separate class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016. The putative class action complaint alleges that the individual members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the WPZ Merger Agreement, which purportedly reduced the merger consideration to be received in the subsequent proposed merger with Energy Transfer. The complaint seeks damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On April 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint pleading substantially the same claims for the same basic relief. On May 6, 2016, we requested the court dismiss the lawsuit. On September 2, 2016, the same purported shareholder filed a derivative action claiming that the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by executing the WPZ Merger Agreement as a defensive measure against Energy Transfer. On September 28, 2016, we filed a Motion to Dismiss. "Another putative class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware on January 19, 2016, but the plaintiff filed a notice for voluntary dismissal on March 7, 2016, which the court accepted. "Additionally a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma, filed January 14, 2016, that claimed that certain disclosures about the merger violate certain federal securities laws and that the defendants are liable for such violations, was dismissed on April 28, 2016, for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff, who was seeking injunctive relief, subsequently amended his complaint. On June 16, 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims in exchange for certain supplemental disclosures, and pursuant to which we agreed to pay the plaintiff's fees and expenses capped at $170,000. Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Amended Complaint Filed in Oklahoma Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint in the class action on behalf of certain purchasers of Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ) units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of WPZ units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants us, WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's intention to pursue a purchase of us conditioned on us not closing the WPZ Merger Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2016. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time." Williams is an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks Summary Judgment in Singleton-LoGrasso ------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers. On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015. On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum- selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths. WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum- selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21, 2015, respectively. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016, and on March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission. On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit. On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted and the appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit on August 1, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and distribution of content through various channels, including its premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements, pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films, licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer products featuring its brands. WORLD WRESTLING: Dismissal of "Laurinaitis" Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has moved to dismiss the complaint by Joseph M. Laurinaitis. On July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various state Worker's Compensation laws. This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on October 19, 2016. The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and distribution of content through various channels, including its premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements, pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films, licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer products featuring its brands. WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwell Seeks to Add WCW Inc as Defendant ---------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plainfiff in the Bagwell action has filed a motion for leave to amend with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things, seeks to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc. as a defendant. On August 9, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled Marcus Bagwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. Sec.42-110a, et seq., principally arising from WWE's alleged failure to pay royalties for streaming video on the WWE Network. On September 7, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was filed along with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things, seeks to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc. as a defendant. The Company believes all claims against the Company in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and distribution of content through various channels, including its premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements, pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films, licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer products featuring its brands. YAHOO INC: Faces "Savett" Suit Over Theft of Users' Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM SAVETT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. YAHOO! INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-06152 (N.D. Cal., October 25, 2016), alleges that Yahoo failed to adequately safeguard clients' personal information, resulting in the theft of sensitive personal information of internet users in 2014. Yahoo is an Internet company that provides Internet-based services to hundreds of millions of users. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPTENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-756-6994 Fax: 619-756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 253-6307 Fax: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *