/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 251 Headlines AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in Tennessee ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Final Hearing of Denver Accord on Feb. 10 ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Suit Tossed with Leave to Amend ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Court Wants Securities Suit Revised ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Dearborn Securities Suit Pending AMGEN INC: Hanks Seeks Review of Ruling in Securities Litigation AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. APPLE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Phillips" Class Suit BANK OF NEW YORK: Defends Two Suits Alleging ERISA Violations BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Securities Litigation Now Final BANK OF NEW YORK: Two Suits by CD Purchasers Pending in Texas BANKRATE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 6 BATS GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling in Providence Securities Suit Appeal BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Seeks Rehearing of Order Affirming Dismissal BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Ashford Unit Faces "Nieder" Suit in Calif. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Toss "Zamir" Amended Suit Underway CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Bonnano's Appellate Brief Due on Dec. 27 CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal Filed in "Amey" Suit Over Class Ruling CRYSTAL CLEAR: Sixth Circuit Appeal Sought in "Cates" Class Suit CST BRANDS: Faces Four Suits Challenging Merger With Circle K EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Will Not Be Amended EMPIRE STATE: Time to Appeal Suit Dismissal Has Now Expired ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,140 Testosterone Cases Pending at Nov. 1 ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AndroGel(R) Direct Purchasers' Claims Pending ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Friedman" Suit ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Certain OPANA(R) ER Buyers' Claims Dismissed ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust MDL ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends "Shasha" Shareholder Suit in New York ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Expects Vaginal Mesh Claims to Be Settled ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Has Responded to 3rd Amended RICO Complaint ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm Antitrust MDL Trial Begins in 2017 EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bezer Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Class Suit EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Suit FTD COMPANIES: Objector Appeals Dismissal of Consolidated Suit GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending GENERAL MILLS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hamilton" Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faverman Sues Over Asia Pacific Acquisition GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Hialeah Employees Suit Still Pending in N.Y. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Time to Appeal $219MM Settlement Has Passed GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice HERC HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit HERTZ GLOBAL: Awaits Appellate Decision in "Sobel" Suit vs. Unit HERTZ GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss in Securities Suit Remain Pending HORTONWORKS INC: Defends "Monachelli" Securities Suit in Calif. INNERWORKINGS INC: "Van Noppen" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: To Settle 3 Suits Over Celator Acquisition KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Cochran Appeals Ruling in "Russell" Class Suit LIBERTY MEDIA: Awaits Final OK of Sirius XM's $35-Mil. Settlement LIPOCINE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Combine Shareholder Suits MDL 02295: Has Paid $18 Million to Settle TCPA Suits NASDAQ INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Still Pending NASDAQ INC: Awaits 2nd Circuit's Action in "Lanier" Suit Appeal NASDAQ INC: Awaits SEC's Views Over Issues in Providence Suit NAVIENT STUDENT: BlackRock Suit Parties May Pursue Discovery NAVIENT STUDENT: Discovery in Royal Park Class Suit Ongoing NAVIENT STUDENT: Lord Abbett Files Amended Consolidated Complaint NEW JERSEY, USA: Aruanno Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in "Alves" Suit NEWLINK GENETICS: "Abramson" Suit Lead Plaintiffs Amend Complaint NEWS CORP: "Wilder" Stockholders Class Suit Has Been Closed ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Douvris' Motion for Joinder PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Oregon Suits PERFORMANCE FOOD: Agrees to Settle "Wilder" Suit for $2.3 Million PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Defends Suits Arising From Line 901 Incident PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Line 901 Spill Pending PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Suit Over Pocahontas Pump Release Dismissed POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Appeal in "Kwasnik" Suit QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Has Concluded REALPAGE INC: E.D. Virginia Refuses to Dismiss "Jenkins" Suit REALPAGE INC: Fails to Win Nod to Dismiss "Stokes" Class Suit ROCKET FUEL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Suit Claims' Processing Ongoing SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Exploration Unit Faces "West" Suit in Oklahoma SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Gernandt Will Not Recover Anything Under Plan SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Lanier Trust Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Processing of "Peck" Claims Still Ongoing SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing SHRED-IT USA: Kirchner Appeals From E.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park vs. Deutsche Bank SLM STUDENT: Lead Plaintiff Amends Securities Suit vs. Navient SLM STUDENT: Parties in BlackRock Suit May Promulgate Discovery STARZ: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Merger With Lions Gate Unit TEXAS, USA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dunsmore" Class Suit VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending VIVINT SOLAR: Awaits Appellate Decision on "Hyatt" Suit Dismissal VIVINT SOLAR: Has Paid $1.7-Mil. in Calif. Suit Settlement Fund WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Zouzout" Consumer Class Action Suit in Canada WEX INC: Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending XPO LOGISTICS: Contractors Suits vs. Units Still in Initial Stage XPO LOGISTICS: Defends Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile TCPA Claims Still in Initial Stages XPO LOGISTICS: Payments in "Mendoza" Case Settlement Ongoing XPO LOGISTICS: Settles "Pina" Wage and Hour Suit vs. LTL Unit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Sends Reinsurance Issue to NY App. Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Summary Judgment in "Linsowe" Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puget Sound No Longer a Defendant in "Johnson" ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACL Directed to Produce Docs in Take-Home Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversity Show Cause Order Issued in "Schmidt" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote's Suit vs. Aviva Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pudsey Widow Seeks Info From Husband Co-Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Husband's Anglesey Co-Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Probing on Husband Asbestos-Related Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minnesota Couple Sues Crown, Cork, et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bronchoalveolar Lavage Accurate for Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sinclair Pays EPA $65K for Asbestos Cleanup ********* AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated shareholder lawsuit against AAC Holdings, Inc., remains pending in the Middle District of Tennessee, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al. and Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.). The plaintiff generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information. On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in the same court. On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating these two described actions into one action. On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On July 1, 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss. In a related matter, on November 28, 2015, a shareholder filed a derivative action on behalf of AAC Holdings, Inc. in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada (Bushansky v. Jerrod N. Menz et al.) against AAC's board of directors and certain of its officers alleging that these directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in mismanagement and illegal conduct. On January 19, 2016, the Court entered an Order staying this litigation pending the earlier of the close of discovery in the related securities class action pending in Tennessee or the deadline for appealing any dismissal of the securities class action. The Company says it intends to defend these actions vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with certainty and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any. AAC Holdings, Inc., is a provider of inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment services for individuals with drug and alcohol addiction. The Company also performs drug testing and diagnostics laboratory services and provides physician services to its clients. ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Final Hearing of Denver Accord on Feb. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing for the final approval of the settlement in the Denver Securities Litigation is currently set for February 10, 2017, according to Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc.'s Nov. 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver, Colorado ("U.S. District Court"). This lawsuit and a companion case were originally filed in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the U.S. District Court consolidated these cases and appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of the law firms. The consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.) (the "Denver Securities Litigation"). The lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Class Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain current and former Company officers. Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants ("Defendants") misrepresented to the investing public the Company's financial condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of ADES's common stock. The Consolidated Complaint alleges two claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages together with costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting the class action, among other relief, and alleges a class period covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b) claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015. On March 7, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the case while the parties mediated the matter. On March 8, 2016, the motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice with the option to refile should mediation fail. The case was stayed until further order of the U.S. District Court. Following the mediation, which occurred in May of 2016, the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Denver Securities Litigation, and on June 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Denver Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety. Under the terms of the Denver Settlement, a payment of $4.0 million will be made in exchange for the release of claims against the defendants and other released parties by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members, and for the dismissal of the action with prejudice. The Denver Settlement remains subject to the final approval of the U.S. District Court. Prior to any final U.S. District Court approval of the Denver Settlement, potential settlement class members (i.e., all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015 ((both dates inclusive), with limited exclusions), will have an opportunity to exclude themselves from participating in the Denver Settlement or to raise objections with the U.S. District Court regarding the Denver Settlement or any part thereof. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Denver Securities Litigation filed the Denver Settlement and related exhibits with the U.S. District Court and moved, among other things, for the U.S. District Court to preliminarily approve the Denver Settlement, to approve the contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class members, to certify the Denver Securities Litigation as a class action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for the U.S. District Court to consider final approval of the Denver Settlement (the "Motion for Preliminary Approval"). On October 13, 2016, the U.S. District Court issued an order granting the unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval and set a hearing for the U.S. District Court to consider final approval of the Denver Settlement on February 10, 2017. The Denver Settlement contains no admission of liability, and all of the Defendants in the Denver Securities Litigation have expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing or improper conduct. If the Denver Settlement is approved by the U.S. District Court, the Company's insurance carriers will fund the $4.0 million Denver Settlement. In the event the Denver Settlement is not approved by the U.S. District Court or otherwise does not become effective for any reason, the Denver Settlement will become null and void, all things of value will be returned to the party providing them, and the case will move forward. Under those circumstances, all of the Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. As of September 30, 2016, the Company had a recorded liability of $4.0 million in connection with the Denver Settlement as the losses in connection with this matter were probable and reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. The liability was originally recorded as of June 30, 2016 in the Legal settlements and accruals line item of the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of September 30, 2016, the Company also had a recorded receivable of $4.0 million in connection with the Denver Settlement as the Company's insurance carriers will fund the full settlement. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal office located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, is principally engaged in providing environmental and emissions control equipment, technologies and specialty chemicals to the coal-burning electric power generation industry. ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Suit Tossed with Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of San Mateo dismissed with leave to amend certain claims a securities class action lawsuit against Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In December 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its board of directors, underwriters of its January 13, 2015, follow-on public stock offering, and two of its institutional stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's follow-on stock offering, the defendants violated the Securities Act in essentially the same manner alleged by the consolidated federal action: by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements and by allegedly omitting material information related to the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The plaintiff has dismissed the two institutional stockholder defendants. In August 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion to stay without prejudice, denied the Company's demurrer, and dismissed with leave to amend certain claims against the underwriter defendants. The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the actions. While the Company has various insurance policies related to the risks associated with its business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense of the actions, that its insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured retention, will be sufficient, or that its insurance carriers will cover all claims or litigation costs. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the timing or outcomes of these matters or estimate the amount of losses, or range of losses, if any, or their effect, if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements. Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware on July 17, 2006, as Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. and changed its name to Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. on May 11, 2016. The Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Company is a gene therapy company committed to discovering and developing novel medicines that can offer potentially life-changing therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from chronic or debilitating and rare diseases. ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Court Wants Securities Suit Revised ------------------------------------------------------------ A California federal district court dismissed a consolidated securities class action complaint against Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., but gave Plaintiffs until December 2, 2016, to file an amended consolidated complaint, Adverum said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In July 2015, three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly traded securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act) and allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted allegedly material information related to, among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in February 2016. On November 3, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. It set a deadline of December 2, 2016 for plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the actions. While the Company has various insurance policies related to the risks associated with its business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense of the actions, that its insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured retention, will be sufficient, or that its insurance carriers will cover all claims or litigation costs. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the timing or outcomes of these matters or estimate the amount of losses, or range of losses, if any, or their effect, if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements. Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware on July 17, 2006, as Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. and changed its name to Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. on May 11, 2016. The Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Company is a gene therapy company committed to discovering and developing novel medicines that can offer potentially life-changing therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from chronic or debilitating and rare diseases. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Dearborn Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System's appeal from the dismissal of its securities class action lawsuit remains pending, Align Technology, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered the Company's financial statements and projections of future earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on Jan. 8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On August 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing for the appeals was completed in May 2015 and the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments in October 2016. Align says it intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any. AMGEN INC: Hanks Seeks Review of Ruling in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Donald Hanks filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled IN RE AMGEN INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:07-cv-02536-PSG-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Scott Kairalla, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56769, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an order approving a settlement to resolve the Case. The Settlement provides for a total payment of $95 million in cash for the benefit of the Class. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by December 23, 2016; -- Transcript is due on March 23, 2017; -- Appellant Donald Hanks' opening brief is due on May 2, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees Amgen, Inc., City of Boca Raton Police & Firefighters Retirement System, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, Willard H. Dere, John A. Elden, Dennis M. Fenton, Edward V. Fritzky, Gary Jaffe, Franklin P. Johnson Jr., Scott Kairalla, London Pensions Fund Authority, Brian M. McNamee, Melanie Mendell, George J. Morrow, Richard D. Nanula, Gilbert S. Omenn, Roger M. Perlmutter, Burt Rosenfeld and Kevin W. Sharer is due on June 1, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellee SCOTT KAIRALLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com Plaintiff-Appellee CITY OF BOCA RATON POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM is represented by: Nicole Lavallee, Esq. Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. BERMAN DeVALERIO One California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com Plaintiffs-Appellees MELANIE MENDELL, GARY JAFFE, JOHN A. ELDEN and BURT ROSENFELD are represented by: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS is represented by: Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. Richard Joffe, Esq. James W. Johnson, Esq. Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005-1108 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com rjoffe@labaton.com jjohnson@labaton.com cmcdonald@labaton.com jplasse@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com - and - Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 622-6469 Facsimile: (213) 622-6019 E-mail: Gnelson@kreindler.com Defendants-Appellees AMGEN, INC., KEVIN W. SHARER, RICHARD D. NANULA, ROGER M. PERLMUTTER and GEORGE J. MORROW are represented by: Steven Feldman, Esq. Moez Kaba, Esq. HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP 523 West 6th Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 788-4272 Facsimile: (888) 755-0898 E-mail: sfeldman@hueston.com mkaba@hueston.com - and - John Charles Hueston, Esq. HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 229-8640 E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com Defendant-Appellee AMGEN, INC., is represented by: Andrew Jeffrey Strabone, Esq. Glenn Vanzura, Esq. IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Facsimile: (310) 556-5315 E-mail: astrabone@irell.com gvanzura@irell.com Defendants-Appellees KEVIN W. SHARER, WILLARD H. DERE, DENNIS M. FENTON, BRIAN M. MCNAMEE, EDWARD V. FRITZKY, GILBERT S. OMENN and FRANKLIN P. JOHNSON, Jr., are represented by: Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., remains pending in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court in the Central District of California, Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the STEP study. The cases were consolidated, and on February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Sections 11 and 15 under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of common stock from January 13, 2014 through August 21, 2014, including purchasers in the Company's offering on February 28, 2014. On April 8, 2016, Ampio and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, on August 4, 2016. On September 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, alleging the same claims set forth in the consolidated amended complaint during the same class period. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company currently believes the likelihood of a loss contingency related to these matters is remote and, therefore, no provision for a loss contingency is required. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused primarily on developing compounds that decrease inflammation by (i) inhibiting specific pro-inflammatory compounds by affecting specific pathways at the protein expression and at the transcription level; (ii) activating specific phosphatase or depleting available phosphate needed for the inflammation process; and (iii) decreasing vascular permeability. APPLE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Phillips" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Cottrell, Suzanne Schmidt Phillips and William Scott Phillips filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuits entitled William Phillips, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case Nos. 5:15-cv-04879-LHK and 5:15-cv-05205-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. The matter arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to adequately disclose and represent, among other things, the true nature of the Wi-Fi Assist included in the recently released iOS 9 operating system. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue, although Apple ensured that the Wi-Fi Assist application is installed on the phone as automatically activated, Apple failed to fully disclose that if Wi-Fi Assist is left activated it will allow the phone to automatically switch to using cellular data. The appellate case is captioned as William Phillips, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 16-17189, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by December 28, 2016; -- Transcript is due on January 27, 2017; -- Opening brief of Appellants William Cottrell, Suzanne Schmidt Phillips and William Scott Phillips is due on March 8, 2017; -- Appellee Apple, Inc.'s answering brief is due on April 7, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM SCOTT PHILLIPS, SUZANNE SCHMIDT PHILLIPS and WILLIAM COTTRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: John Givens Emerson, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. Sean Clinton Woods, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 E-mail: mcshane@audetlaw.com cwoods@audetlaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15090 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 80 South 8th Street 1650 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com Defendant-Appellee APPLE, INC., is represented by: Bambo Obaro, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065-1175 Telephone: (650) 802-3083 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 E-mail: bambo.obaro@weil.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Defends Two Suits Alleging ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend itself against two consolidated lawsuits in New York alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The primary claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits have been consolidated into two suits which are pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York and are all in their early stages. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global investments company dedicated to improving lives through investing. The Company manages and services assets for financial institutions, corporations and individual investors in 35 countries and more than 100 markets. BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Securities Litigation Now Final --------------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that its settlement of a putative class action lawsuit asserting securities law violations is now final. Beginning in December 2009, government authorities conducted inquiries seeking information relating primarily to standing instruction foreign exchange transactions in connection with custody services BNY Mellon provides to custody clients. On various dates beginning in 2009, BNY Mellon was named as a defendant in lawsuits by various government and private entities alleging BNY Mellon's pricing of standing instruction foreign exchange transactions was improper. On March 19, 2015, BNY Mellon announced that it had resolved substantially all of the pending standing instruction-related actions, resulting in a total of $714 million in settlement payments. On May 21, 2015, BNY Mellon settled a putative class action lawsuit asserting securities law violations. As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 21, 2015, the total settlement amount is fully covered by pre-existing legal reserves. The U.S. Department of Justice and New York Attorney General will each receive $167.5 million. The U.S. Department of Labor will receive $14 million and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, with which the Company has reached a settlement in principle, will receive $30 million. The Company has agreed to pay $335 million to settle the customer class action litigation. With these settlements, which are now all final, BNY Mellon has effectively resolved virtually all of the standing instruction FX- related actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by individual customers or shareholders asserting derivative claims. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global investments company dedicated to improving lives through investing. The Company manages and services assets for financial institutions, corporations and individual investors in 35 countries and more than 100 markets. BANK OF NEW YORK: Two Suits by CD Purchasers Pending in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits brought by purchasers of certificates of deposit against Pershing LLC, an indirect subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, remain pending in Texas, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In late December 2005, Pershing LLC became a clearing firm for Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen Stanford. Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by Stanford, issued certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In 2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 15 lawsuits against Pershing that are pending in Texas, including two putative class actions. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual, statutory and common law claims. In addition, one FINRA arbitration matter brought by alleged purchasers remains pending. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global investments company dedicated to improving lives through investing. The Company manages and services assets for financial institutions, corporations and individual investors in 35 countries and more than 100 markets. BANKRATE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has scheduled a hearing for February 6, 2017, to determine whether to give final approval to Bankrate, Inc.'s settlement of a securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages. Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive. On May 17, 2016, the Company announced a proposed agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle this private securities class action against all defendants. Bankrate would pay a total of $20 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9, 2014. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on August 25, 2016, and notice of the proposed settlement is being given to the class. The Court has scheduled a hearing for February 6, 2017 to determine whether to give the settlement final approval. The Company accrued for the settlement amount as of June 30, 2016. Approximately $13.8 million of the settlement fund has been funded from insurance proceeds. Bankrate, Inc., owns and operates an Internet-based consumer banking, personal finance and senior care network. The Company's flagship Web sites, Bankrate.com, CreditCards.com and Caring.com are some of the Internet's leading aggregators of information on more than 300 financial and senior care products and services, including mortgages, deposits, credit cards, other personal finance categories and senior care resources. Additionally, the Company provides financial applications and information to a network of distribution partners and through national and state publications. BATS GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling in Providence Securities Suit Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Bats Global Markets, Inc., awaits decision on an appeal filed by the City of Providence, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on a registered public stock exchange (Exchange Defendants) or a United States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company says it is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. Bats Global Markets, Inc., is a global financial technology company that provides trade execution, market data, trade reporting, connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers, market makers, asset managers and other market participants, ultimately benefiting retail and institutional investors across multiple asset classes. BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Seeks Rehearing of Order Affirming Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harold R. Lanier filed a petition for rehearing of a judgment affirming the District Court's dismissal of all three class action lawsuits, according to Bats Global Markets, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against Bats and other securities exchanges. The complaints were identical in all substantive respects, but each related to the dissemination of market data under a different market system-- (i) the NASDAQ UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market System; and (iii) the Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated Tape System. Each of the actions purported to be brought on behalf of all subscribers who entered into contracts with the exchanges for the receipt of market data and were injured as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaints, which includes allegations that the defendants did not provide market data services in a non-discriminatory manner or provide subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., data that is accurate and not stale). On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court filed an Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants' Motion to Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits with prejudice. On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed its appeal brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24, 2015 and Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015. Oral argument was held on March 3, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the Court filed a Judgment affirming the District Court's dismissal of all three class action lawsuits. Appellant thereafter filed a petition for a rehearing before the panel or the entire appellate court on October 7, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company says it is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. Bats Global Markets, Inc., is a global financial technology company that provides trade execution, market data, trade reporting, connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers, market makers, asset managers and other market participants, ultimately benefiting retail and institutional investors across multiple asset classes. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Ashford Unit Faces "Nieder" Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a putative class action lawsuit styled Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC, filed in California, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company says it has not yet responded to the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against it. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider of postsecondary education services. The Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ashford University(R) and University of the Rockies(SM), are regionally accredited academic institutions. Ashford University offers associate's, bachelor's and master's programs, and University of the Rockies offers master's and doctoral programs. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Toss "Zamir" Amended Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc., awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit entitled Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016, which is currently pending with the Court. The Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., incorporated in 1999, is a provider of postsecondary education services. The Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ashford University(R) and University of the Rockies(SM), are regionally accredited academic institutions. Ashford University offers associate's, bachelor's and master's programs, and University of the Rockies offers master's and doctoral programs. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Bonnano's Appellate Brief Due on Dec. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' opening brief in their appeal from the dismissal of the securities lawsuit captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., is due on December 27, 2016, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014, through April 7, 2015, the Company made material misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of the damages sought. On June 3, 2015, defendants were served. On June 29, 2015, the Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed. The deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015. On that date, one motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative plaintiff Michelle Jackson. On August 3, 2015, having received no opposition, the Court appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Law Firm as class counsel. As stipulated among the parties, Jackson filed an amended class action complaint on September 17, 2015. The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Liu. On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued on April 20, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On June 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on June 30, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion was held on August 17, 2016. On September 2, 2016, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and entered judgment against Plaintiffs. On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs must file their opening brief on December 27, 2016, to proceed with the appeal. The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company in the matter. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the range of potential loss. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., is a biomedicine company, principally engaged in the development of new treatments for cancerous and degenerative diseases utilizing proprietary cell- based technologies. The Company's technology includes two major platforms: (i) Immune Cell therapy for treatment of a broad range of cancers using : Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cell (CAR-T), cancer vaccine, and T Central Memory Cell (Tcm) technology, and (ii) human adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells (haMPC) for treatment of joint and autoimmune diseases, with primary research and manufacturing facilities in China. CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal Filed in "Amey" Suit Over Class Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- A plaintiff in the lawsuit initiated by Joseph Amey, et al., appealed the Court's determination that class certification is not appropriate and that a California Private Attorney General Act representative action is not appropriate, Cinemark Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. The case entitled Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, presents putative class action claims for damages and attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend against all claims. The Court determined that class certification is not appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., operates in the motion picture exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay. CRYSTAL CLEAR: Sixth Circuit Appeal Sought in "Cates" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Cates, Brian Stover and Jason Miller filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Courtney Cates, et al. v. Crystal Clear Technologies, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages and injunction against Defendants from preventing other telecommunications providers to serve the neighborhoods pursuant to Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The appellate case is captioned as Courtney Cates, et al. v. Crystal Clear Technologies, et al., Case No. 16-6714, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on January 9, 2017; and -- Appellee brief is due on February 6, 2017. Plaintiffs-Appellants COURTNEY CATES, BRIAN STOVER and JASON MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Benjamin Andrew Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PPLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: beng@BSJFirm.com Defendants-Appellees CRYSTAL CLEAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, CARBINE & ASSOCIATES, BRIDGEMORE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, and TOLLGATE FARMS, LLC, are represented by: David Alexander Fardon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ALEXANDER FARDON P.O. Box 198528 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 517-5680 Defendants-Appellees TOLLGATE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION INC. and BRIDGEMORE VILLAGE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION INC. Valerie Leigh Diden Moore, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 244-9270 E-mail: valerie.moore@butlersnow.com CST BRANDS: Faces Four Suits Challenging Merger With Circle K ------------------------------------------------------------- CST Brands, Inc., is facing four class action lawsuits challenging its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Circle K Stores Inc., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On August 21, 2016, CST Brands, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Circle K Stores Inc., a Texas corporation ("Parent"), and Ultra Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into CST, with CST surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. Four separate complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of CST commencing putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger in the San Antonio Division of the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas. The first complaint, captioned Richard Malone v. CST Brands, Inc. et. al. (No. 5:16-cv- 0955), was filed on September 26, 2016 and names as defendants CST and the directors of CST. That complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement that was allegedly materially incomplete and misleading. The second complaint, captioned Harry Savage v. CST Brands, Inc. et. al. (No. 5:16-cv-0968), was filed on September 29, 2016 and names as defendants CST, the directors of CST, Parent and Merger Sub. That complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of CST breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to an allegedly unfair price in an allegedly unfair process and that they violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement that was allegedly materially incomplete and misleading, and that Parent and Merger Sub allegedly aided and abetted their breaches of fiduciary duty. The third complaint, captioned Jacob Kempler Family Trust v. CST Brands, Inc. (No. 5:16-cv-00982), was filed on October 4, 2016 and names as defendants CST and the directors of CST. That complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement that was allegedly materially incomplete and misleading. The fourth complaint, captioned Patrick Zellner vs. CST Brands, Inc., et al. (No. 5:16-cv-01012-FB). That complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act by filing or permitting to be filed a proxy statement that was allegedly materially incomplete and misleading. In each suit, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining completion of the merger, monetary damages and costs and attorneys' fees. On October 11, 2016 a Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed in the Malone litigation and briefings were completed by November 5, 2016. The Company believes these claims are without merit. CST Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company and conducts substantially all of its operations through its subsidiaries. The Company's U.S. Retail segment operations are substantially a company-owned and operated convenience store business. The Company's Canadian Retail segment includes company- owned and operated convenience stores, commission agents, independent dealers, cardlocks and business and home energy operations. The CrossAmerica segment is engaged in the wholesale distribution of motor fuels. EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Will Not Be Amended --------------------------------------------------------------- Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lead plaintiff of a consolidated securities lawsuit does not intend to amend his complaint and will, instead, appeal a judgment in favor of the Defendants. In July 2015, three putative securities class action complaints (captioned Fialkov v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1458- AJB-DHB, Lorusso v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1501-L- JLB and Jacobs v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1529-AJB- MDD) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Celladon and certain of Celladon's current and former officers. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the clinical trial program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of Celladon's common stock. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees. On September 1, 2015, six stockholders (or groups of stockholders) filed motions to consolidate the three putative securities class actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs (the "Motions to Consolidate"). A hearing on the Motions to Consolidate was held on December 3, 2015. On December 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the three putative securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016. On April 29, 2016, the defendants, including Eiger, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amendment complaint. On June 28, 2016, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 28, 2016, the defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On October 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On October 18, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice that stated he does not intend to amend the complaint, an upon the Court's entry of judgment in favor of defendants, lead plaintiff will file a notice to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company is not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims. Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., was incorporated in the state of Delaware on November 6, 2008. The Company is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that brings to market novel products for the treatment of orphan diseases. The Company's principal operations are based in Palo Alto, California. EMPIRE STATE: Time to Appeal Suit Dismissal Has Now Expired ----------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the time for any further appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit has now expired. Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named the Company and its operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name the Company or its operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include additional materials from the Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. Oral argument on the appeal was held on October 28, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the Second Class Actions. The plaintiffs moved the appellate court for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On March 1, 2016, the appellate court denied the motion. On March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, which the Court of Appeals denied on June 9, 2016. The time for any further appeal of this dismissal has now expired. Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., is a self-administered and self- managed real estate investment trust that owns, manages, operates, acquires, redevelops and repositions office and retail properties in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,140 Testosterone Cases Pending at Nov. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,140 testosterone cases are currently pending against Endo International plc, as of November 1, 2016, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications containing testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available. In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium, and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545. However, the Company says, it cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be brought against the Company. The Company says it intends to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in the Company's best interest. As of November 1, 2016, approximately 1,140 cases are currently pending against the Company; some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AndroGel(R) Direct Purchasers' Claims Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claims by the direct purchasers of AndroGel(R) remain pending, Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In January 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the FTC) filed a lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (subsequently renamed Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. and referred as Par), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and which alleged violations of antitrust law arising out of Par's settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of AndroGel(R). The FTC complaint generally seeks a finding that Par's settlement agreement violates Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and a permanent injunction against Par's ability to engage in certain types of patent settlements in the future. Beginning in February 2009, certain private plaintiffs, including distributors and retailers, filed similar litigation. Generally, the remaining private plaintiff suits seek equitable relief, unspecified damages and costs. In February 2010, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. In April 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on the motion to dismiss the FTC's claims. In September 2012, the District Court granted a motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs' claims of sham litigation. In July 2013, the Supreme Court of the U.S. reversed the Court of Appeals' and District Court's decisions concerning the FTC action and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In May 2016, those private plaintiffs representing the putative class of indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case against Par with prejudice. Claims by the direct purchasers and the FTC are still pending. The Company says it intends to contest this litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in the Company's best interest. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Friedman" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Craig Friedman, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In May 2016, a putative class action entitled Craig Friedman v. Endo International plc Company, Rajiv de Silva and Suketu Upadhyay was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. In August 2016, the Steamfitters' Industry Pension Fund and Steamfitters' Industry Security Benefit Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs in the action. In October 2016, a Second Amended Complaint was filed. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the Company's revision of its 2016 earnings guidance and certain disclosures about its generics business, the integration of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (subsequently renamed Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. and referred as Par) and its subsidiaries, certain other alleged business issues and the receipt of a CID from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York regarding contracts with Pharmacy Benefit Managers concerning Frova(R). The Second Amended Complaint adds Paul Campanelli as a defendant. The complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case in October 2016. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this matter, but will explore all options as appropriate in the Company's best interest and the Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Certain OPANA(R) ER Buyers' Claims Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants successfully moved to dismiss certain indirect purchaser unjust enrichment claims in the lawsuits brought by purchasers of OPANA(R) ER, Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER have filed cases against the Company's subsidiaries Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI) and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), and other pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which the Company subsequently acquired, and Impax Laboratories Inc. (Impax), all of which have been transferred and coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Some of these cases have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others have been filed on behalf of individual retailers or health care benefit plans. These cases generally allege that the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re- formulation of OPANA(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well as state common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In February 2016, the District Court issued orders (i) denying defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers, (ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints and (iii) granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints. In response to the District Court's orders, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint to which the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain retailers have also filed amended complaints. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the indirect purchaser unjust enrichment claims arising under the laws of the states of California, Rhode Island and Illinois. The Company says it cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the timing or outcome of any such litigation. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc is defending itself and a subsidiary from claims in the multidistrict litigation entitled In Re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation pending in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. Beginning in January 2016, several complaints, including multiple class action complaints, have been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of Rhode Island against the Company and certain of the Company's subsidiaries, including Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (subsequently renamed Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. and referred as Par), along with other manufacturers of certain generic pharmaceutical products, seeking compensatory and punitive or treble damages, as well as injunctive relief and alleging that certain marketing and pricing practices by the defendant companies violated state law, including consumer protection law and/or federal and state antitrust laws. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, issued an order in August 2016 transferring certain of these cases as In Re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company says additional similar claims may be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defends "Shasha" Shareholder Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc is defending a purported class action lawsuit commenced by Doris Shasha in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On November 7, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by an individual shareholder on behalf of herself and all similarly situated shareholders, bearing the caption Doris Shasha v. Endo International plc Company, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva and Suketu P. Upadhyay. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It alleges that the Company made material false statements in, or omitted material information from, certain of the Company's public disclosures from September 28, 2015 through November 2, 2016, based on news reports of an investigation by the Department of Justice into potential price collusion in the pharmaceutical industry. The complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this matter, but will explore all options as appropriate in the Company's best interest and the Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Expects Vaginal Mesh Claims to Be Settled ------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it expects that valid claims under the Master Settlement Agreements resolving Vaginal Mesh Cases will continue to be settled. In October 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification (October 2008 Public Health Notification) regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public and the medical community of the potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat POP and SUI. In the July 2011 update, the FDA stated that adverse events are not rare. Furthermore, the FDA questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. In January 2016, the FDA issued a statement reclassifying surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair from Class II to Class III. Surgical mesh for SUI repair remains a Class II device. In January 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for urinary incontinence, such as the Company's AMS subsidiary, to conduct post-market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating to the use of these products. AMS received a total of 19 class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic floor repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to place 16 of these study orders on hold for a variety of reasons. AMS commenced three of these post-market study orders; however, in connection with the wind down of the Astora business, it notified the FDA of its termination of these studies. The FDA has confirmed closure of these studies. Since 2008, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including AMS and/or Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in the U.S. in various state courts and in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325), in Canada, where various class action and individual complaints are pending, and in other countries alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, where available. The Company and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh- related product liability claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other settlement agreements regarding settling up to approximately 49,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel for an aggregate total of approximately $2.8 billion. These MSAs, which were executed at various times since June 2013, were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or any of its subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by each law firm party to the MSA. If certain participation thresholds are not met, then the Company will have the right to terminate the settlement with that law firm. In addition, one agreement gives us a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in QSFs are included in restricted cash and cash equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other claims that are identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlement, shall be kept confidential by all parties and their counsel. The Company said, "We expect that valid claims under the MSAs will continue to be settled. However, we intend to vigorously contest pending and future claims that are invalid, for which settlement is not able to be reached or that are in excess of the maximum claim amounts under the MSAs. We are currently aware of approximately 8,000 asserted claims and unasserted claims, which we believe are likely to be asserted, that have not been accrued for because we lack sufficient information to determine whether any potential loss is probable. In addition to these asserted and unasserted claims, which we believe are likely to be asserted, there may be other claims asserted in the future. It is currently not possible to estimate the number or validity of any such future claims." "In order to evaluate whether a claim is probable of a loss, we must obtain and evaluate certain information pertaining to each individual claim, including but not limited to the following items: the name and social security number of the plaintiff, evidence of an AMS implant, the date of implant, the date the claim was first asserted to AMS, the date that plaintiff's counsel was retained, and most importantly, medical records establishing the injury alleged. Without access to at least this information and the opportunity to evaluate it, we are not in a position to determine its validity or whether a loss is probable. Further, the timing and extent to which we obtain this information and our evaluation thereof, is often impacted by items outside of our control, including, without limitation, the normal cadence of the litigation process and the provision of claim information to us by plaintiff's counsel." "We will continue to monitor the situation, and, if appropriate, we will make further adjustments to our product liability accrual based on new information. We intend to continue exploring all options as appropriate in our best interests, and depending on developments, there is a possibility that we will suffer adverse decisions or verdicts of substantial amounts, or that we will enter into additional monetary settlements. Any unfavorable outcomes as a result of such litigation or settlements with respect to any asserted or unasserted claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Has Responded to 3rd Amended RICO Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc has filed a response to the third amended complaint in a lawsuit against its subsidiaries alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In November 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), and various other manufacturers of testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance companies and other third party payors that had paid for certain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts of EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers with respect to certain testosterone products constituted racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), and other civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. Further, the complaint alleges that EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers violated various state consumer protection laws through their marketing of certain testosterone products and raises other state law claims. In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs responded by filing amended complaints. In February 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for conspiracy to commit racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) and claims for negligent misrepresentation. In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss in June 2016. In August 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss and the Company filed a response to the third amended complaint in September 2016. In October 2015, a similar civil class action complaint was filed against EPI and other defendant manufacturers in the Northern District of Illinois. Similar litigation may be brought by other plaintiffs. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for this matter, if any, but the Company will explore all options as appropriate in the Company's best interest. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm Antitrust MDL Trial Begins in 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2017 in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521, according to Endo International plc's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed a number of cases against the Company's subsidiary EPI and co- defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Actavis), which was subsequently acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and its subsidiaries (collectively, Teva) from Allergan plc (Allergan). Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are individual cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that EPI, Teikoku and Actavis (now Teva) entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent) and other patents. Some of the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. SectionSection 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, issued an order in April 2014 transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In June 2016, motions for class certification were filed on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and EPI, Teikoku and Actavis filed oppositions to those motions in September 2016. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2017. The Company says litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation. Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bezer Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Party-in-Interest Adam Bezer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jenkins, et al. v. Equifax Information Services, Case No. 3:15-cv-00443-MHL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are James Jenkins, Natasha Thomas, Keith Bohannon, Hampton Brown, Rachel Simms, Connie Voss, Carolyn Clark, James Neill and Nathaniel Lewis. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Adam Bezer v. Equifax Information Services, Case No. 16-2350, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Informal Opening Brief is due on December 22, 2016; and -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 17 days after informal opening brief is filed. Defendant-Appellee EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, is represented by: Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. Phyllis Buchen Sumner, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com psumner@kslaw.com - and - John Willard Montgomery, Jr., Esq. MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLLP 2116 Dabney Road Richmond, VA 23230-0000 Telephone: (804) 355-8744 Facsimile: (804) 355-8748 E-mail: jmontgomery@jwm-law.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Jenkins" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Party-in-Interest Patrick S. Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jenkins, et al. v. Equifax Information Services, Case No. 3:15-cv-00443-MHL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are James Jenkins, Natasha Thomas, Keith Bohannon, Hampton Brown, Rachel Simms, Connie Voss, Carolyn Clark, James Neill and Nathaniel Lewis. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Sweeney v. Equifax Information Services, Case No. 16-2351, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Fee or application to proceed as indigent is due on December 28, 2016; -- Informal Opening Brief is due on December 22, 2016; and -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 17 days after informal opening brief is filed. Defendant-Appellee EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, is represented by: Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. Phyllis Buchen Sumner, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com psumner@kslaw.com - and - John Willard Montgomery, Jr., Esq. MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLLP 2116 Dabney Road Richmond, VA 23230-0000 Telephone: (804) 355-8744 Facsimile: (804) 355-8748 E-mail: jmontgomery@jwm-law.com FTD COMPANIES: Objector Appeals Dismissal of Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- An objector appealed the dismissal of a consolidated consumer lawsuit filed in California, according to FTD Companies, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members' billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership Programs. On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August 13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14, 2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint. Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court entered judgment on the Settlement on February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers. On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. The Ninth Circuit's mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the matter is now pending before the district court to consider final approval of the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix. On April 23, 2015, the district court entered an order reopening the case and ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their intentions going forward. On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties, and the objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics on such date. After receiving the parties, and objector's memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final Settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18, 2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July 2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental briefs on July 16, 2015. The pending final settlement approval motion was heard by the district court on July 27, 2016 and taken under submission. On August 9, 2016, the district court entered an order reapproving the Settlement without any changes, and accordingly entered judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The objector filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2016. The date for oral argument on the appeal has not yet been set. The Company says there are no assurances that other legal actions or governmental investigations will not be instituted in connection with the Company's current or former business practices. The Company cannot predict the outcome of governmental investigations or other legal actions or their potential implications for its business. FTD Companies, Inc., is a floral and gifting company. While floral arrangements and plants are its primary offerings, the Company also markets and sells gift items, including gourmet- dipped berries and other sweets, personalized gifts, gift baskets, wine and champagne, jewelry, and spa products. GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the consolidated securities lawsuit against Galectin Therapeutics Inc. remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws and seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to be filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff'). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the putative class action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment. The appeal is fully briefed and is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Galectin Therapeutics Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that is applying its leadership in galectin science and drug development to create new therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. These candidates are based on the Company's targeting of galectin proteins, which are key mediators of biologic and pathologic function. These compounds also may have application for drugs to treat other diseases and chronic health conditions. GENERAL MILLS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hamilton" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Christopher Hamilton filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Hamilton v. General Mills, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00382-MC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene. The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Hamilton v. General Mills, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-36004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by January 3, 2017; -- Transcript is due on January 30, 2017; -- Appellant Christopher Hamilton's opening brief is due on March 13, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees General Mills Sales, Inc. and General Mills, Inc., is due on April 10, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Barbara Ann Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC P.O. Box 7 Bly, OR 97622 Telephone: (903) 574-1807 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com Defendants-Appellees GENERAL MILLS, INC., and GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., are represented by: David Taro Biderman, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 505 Howard Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 344-7003 Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com - and - Julia Elizabeth Markley, Esq. Joanna T. Perini-Abbott, Esq. Charles Christian Sipos, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: (503) 727-2000 E-mail: JMarkley@perkinscoie.com JPeriniAbbott@perkinscoie.com CSipos@perkinscoie.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faverman Sues Over Asia Pacific Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., is facing a lawsuit challenging the proposed acquisition of its publicly owned shares by Asia Pacific Global Capital Co., Ltd., the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In November 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its chief executive officer and its current board of directors were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Faverman v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and seeks to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Genworth Financial, Inc. common stock by Asia Pacific Global Capital Co., Ltd., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Asia Pacific Global Capital USA Corporation. The lawsuit seeks unspecified rescissory damages, costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem proper. The Company says it intends to file a motion to dismiss. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization. Genworth Financial has five operating business segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Hialeah Employees Suit Still Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., remains pending in New York, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company said: "In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead." "On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's June 16, 2015 order denying our motion to dismiss which the court denied on March 3, 2016. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification." The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company says it has exhausted all coverage under its 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program applicable to this case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this litigation. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization. Genworth Financial has five operating business segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Time to Appeal $219MM Settlement Has Passed --------------------------------------------------------------- The time to appeal the final approval of Genworth Financial, Inc.'s $219 million settlement of the securities lawsuit initiated by Manuel Esguerra has expired, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company said, "In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long- term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss." "We engaged in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, continuing into the first quarter of 2016, and accrued $25 million in connection with this matter during the fourth quarter of 2015, which was the amount of our self-insured retention on our executive and organizational liability insurance program. On March 11, 2016, in connection with the mediation, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 1, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement. The settlement provides for a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but we are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further litigation. The agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class of $219 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, of which $150 million was paid by our insurance carriers, and $69 million pre-tax was paid by Genworth. Our payment was made into an escrow account during the first quarter of 2016. We also incurred additional legal fees and expenses of approximately $10 million pre-tax, for a total additional pre-tax incurred amount of $79 million in the first quarter of 2016. On April 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, provisional certification of the class for settlement purposes only, and issuance of notice to settlement class members. The court held a hearing on July 20, 2016 and approved the settlement." On September 26, 2016, the court entered final judgment in the action. The time to appeal the entry of this judgment expired on October 26, 2016. As a result of the approved settlement, all coverage available to Genworth under its 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program was exhausted. Therefore, Genworth says, it does not have coverage under the program to pay any future settlements or judgments in relation to litigation brought during the 2014 policy year, including the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization. Genworth Financial has five operating business segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Walsh Estate Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the purported class action lawsuit filed by the Estate of Helen F. Walsh was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. In a complaint filed in July 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York and Genworth Life Insurance Company were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Estate of Helen F. Walsh, Deceased v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint alleged breach of contract involving optional inflation increase benefit riders on certain long-term care insurance policies and sought unspecified actual damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and pre- judgment and post-judgment interest. On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the action to Connecticut and a motion to dismiss the action. Pursuant to stipulation, on October 14, 2016, the court ordered the matter dismissed without prejudice. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware in 2003 in preparation for an initial public offering of Genworth's common stock, which was completed on May 28, 2004. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc., upon the completion of the reorganization. Genworth Financial has five operating business segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance and Runoff. HERC HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Herc Holdings Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other defendants' motions to dismiss filed in the lawsuit captioned In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company (under its former Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. name) and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, the Company responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and the Company responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations, named additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the Company filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May 6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and New Hertz, which is responsible for managing this matter, has informed the Company that it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to the Company. However, the Company is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated and combined financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Herc Holdings Inc. is among the largest equipment rental companies in North America. The Company conducts substantially all of its operations through subsidiaries, including Herc Rentals Inc. HERTZ GLOBAL: Awaits Appellate Decision in "Sobel" Suit vs. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., awaits decision on its subsidiary's appeal from a final judgment entered in the lawsuit commenced by Janet Sobel, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who rented vehicles from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class period. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against the Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed by the parties. Oral argument was set for December 12, 2016 in San Francisco. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2015 to serve as the top-level holding company for Rental Car Intermediate Holdings, LLC which wholly owns The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global's primary operating company. Hertz was incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and is a successor to corporations that have been engaged in the vehicle rental and leasing business since 1918. HERTZ GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss in Securities Suit Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants' motions to dismiss filed in the matter styled In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation remain pending, according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations, named additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May 6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. New Hertz and Herc Holdings are each responsible for a portion of the matter and Hertz Global will be responsible for managing the settlement or other disposition of the matter. Hertz Global believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Global. However, the Company is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2015 to serve as the top-level holding company for Rental Car Intermediate Holdings, LLC which wholly owns The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global's primary operating company. Hertz was incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and is a successor to corporations that have been engaged in the vehicle rental and leasing business since 1918. HORTONWORKS INC: Defends "Monachelli" Securities Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Hortonworks, Inc., continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit in California alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On February 29, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00980-SI. The lawsuit names as defendants the Company, Robert G. Bearden, and Scott J. Davidson. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. On June 1, 2016, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff and another named plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hortonworks' securities between August 5, 2015 and January 15, 2016, inclusive. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Hortonworks, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2011 and is an industry leading innovator that creates, distributes and supports enterprise-ready open data platforms and modern data applications that deliver actionable intelligence from all data: data-in-motion and data-at-rest. The Company's Open Enterprise Hadoop solutions include the Hortonworks Data Platform, powered by Apache(TM) Hadoop(R), and the Hortonworks DataFlow Platform, powered by Apache NiFi. INNERWORKINGS INC: "Van Noppen" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- The securities lawsuit titled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., was dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of its intention to restate certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative. On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement provides for payment to the class of $6.0 million, including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and final release, and includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants. The settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company's insurance carrier. On November 2, 2016, the Court issued an order approving the settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice. InnerWorkings, Inc. was incorporated in the state of Delaware on January 3, 2006. The Company is a global marketing execution firm for the world's most marketing intensive companies, including those in the Fortune 1000, across a wide range of industries. As a comprehensive outsourced enterprise solution, the Company leverages proprietary technology, an extensive supplier network and deep domain expertise to streamline the creation, production, and distribution of marketing and promotional materials, signage and displays, retail experiences, events and promotions, and packaging across every major market worldwide. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: To Settle 3 Suits Over Celator Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc awaits the execution of a stipulation of settlement to resolve three putative class action lawsuits challenging its acquisition of Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On July 12, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The aggregate consideration for the Celator Acquisition was approximately $1.5 billion. On June 21, 2016, a putative class-action lawsuit challenging the Celator Acquisition, captioned Dunbar v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Dunbar action, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint was filed against Celator, each member of the Celator board of directors, Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and its wholly owned subsidiary Plex Merger Sub, Inc., or Plex. The complaint generally alleges that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Celator Acquisition, and that Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and Plex aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also generally asserts that the Celator directors breached their fiduciary duties to Celator's public stockholders by, among other things, (i) agreeing to sell Celator to the Company at an inadequate price, (ii) implementing an unfair process, (iii) agreeing to certain provisions of the merger agreement for the Celator Acquisition that allegedly favored the Company and deterred alternative bids, and (iv) failing to disclose purportedly material information in Celator's Schedule 14D-9 filing with the SEC. The plaintiff sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees. Between June 27, 2016 and June 29, 2016, two putative class-action lawsuits challenging the Celator Acquisition, captioned Palmisciano v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Palmisciano action, and Barreto v. Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Barreto action, were filed in the District Court. The complaints were filed against Celator and each member of the Celator board of directors. The complaints assert causes of action under sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, predicated on Celator's and the Celator directors' alleged failure to disclose purportedly material information in Celator's Schedule 14D-9 filing with the SEC. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Celator Acquisition and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees. Neither Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc nor Plex were named defendants in these actions. On July 6, 2016, the defendants to the Dunbar action, the Palmisciano action and the Barreto action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of these actions. The memorandum of understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in these actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to these actions agreed, among other things, that Celator would amend its Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental disclosures. The Schedule 14D-9 was amended by Celator on July 6, 2016, and the Celator Acquisition was completed on July 12, 2016. The settlement remains subject to, among other items, confirmatory discovery, the execution of a stipulation of settlement by the parties, final approval of the settlement by the District Court in the Barreto action and dismissal with prejudice of the Dunbar action and the Palmisciano action. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is an international biopharmaceutical company focused on improving patients' lives by identifying, developing and commercializing meaningful products that address unmet medical needs. The Company has a diverse portfolio of products and product candidates, with a focus in the areas of sleep and hematology/oncology. The Company's lead marketed products are Xyrem(R) (sodium oxybate) oral solution; Erwinaze(R) (asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi), a treatment for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and Defitelio(R) (defibrotide sodium), a product for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with hepatic veno-occlusive disease. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Cochran Appeals Ruling in "Russell" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Barbara S. Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Steven Russell, et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01143-RGK-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The appellate case is captioned as Steven Russell, et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56764, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Other objectors have also filed appeals from court rulings in the "Russell" Case. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is brought against the Defendant for falsely advertising original prices, regular prices, and price discounts for its apparel and other merchandise, in its direct marketing to consumers via in- store advertising displays, print advertising, and Internet. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. owns and operates a chain retail clothing stores throughout the United States. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on March 6, 2017; -- Appellant Barbara S. Cochran's opening brief is due on April 17, 2017; -- Appellees Donna Caffey, Does, Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Steven Russell's answering brief is due on May 17, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and DONNA CAFFEY are represented by: Douglas Caiafa, Esq. DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 11845 W.Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 444-5240 Facsimile: (310) 312-8260 E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com - and - Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF 77305 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 Telephone: (760) 469-5986 Facsimile: (760) 345-1581 E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com Defendant-Appellee KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq. Ryan W. Light, Esq. James Speyer, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: alex_beroukhim@aporter.com ryan.light@aporter.com james.speyer@aporter.com LIBERTY MEDIA: Awaits Final OK of Sirius XM's $35-Mil. Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Media Corporation awaits final approval of the $35 million settlement its subsidiary, Sirius XM Holdings Inc., entered into to resolve lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. SIRIUS XM is a defendant in several purported class action suits that allege that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on its behalf, made calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer revoked his or her prior consent. In one of the actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's call time restrictions and in one of the other actions the plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's do not call restrictions. These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla). SIRIUS XM has entered into an agreement to settle these purported class action suits. The settlement is expected to resolve the claims of consumers beginning in February 2008 relating to telemarketing calls to their mobile telephones. As part of this settlement, SIRIUS XM made a $35 million payment to a settlement fund (from which notice, administration and other costs and attorneys' fees will be paid), are offering participating class members the option of receiving three months of SIRIUS XM's Select service for no charge, and will enter into agreements to make modifications to the practices of certain call center vendors. The settlement is subject to final court approval, which cannot be assured. Liberty Media Corporation, through its ownership of interests in subsidiaries and other companies, is primarily engaged in the media, communications and entertainment industries primarily in North America. The significant subsidiaries include Sirius XM Holdings Inc. and Braves Holdings, LLC. The Company's significant investment accounted for under the equity method is Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. LIPOCINE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Combine Shareholder Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Lipocine Inc. awaits ruling to determine the lead plaintiff in, and to consolidate, various lawsuits filed by shareholders, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This initial action was followed by additional lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey. The lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and allege that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's filing of the NDA for LPCN 1021 to the FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants' statements about the Company's business and operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The Company said, "We believe that the claims in the lawsuits are without merit and will defend against them vigorously. We maintain insurance for claims of this nature, which management believes is adequate. Moreover, we believe, based on information currently available, that the filing and ultimate outcome of the lawsuits will not have a material impact on our financial position, although we will have to pay the insurance retention amount in connection with the lawsuit. A hearing was held on October 3, 2016 to determine the lead plaintiff and to consolidate the various filed lawsuits." Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on applying its oral drug delivery technology for the development of pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health. MDL 02295: Has Paid $18 Million to Settle TCPA Suits ---------------------------------------------------- PRA Group, Inc., has paid $18 million to resolve a multidistrict litigation alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May 20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle ("the Settlement Agreement") under which the parties agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the proposed settlement. As required by the Settlement Agreement, which remains subject to final court approval, the parties sought preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Company paid $18 million to resolve the MDL action during the second quarter of 2016. The Company had fully accrued for the settlement amount as of December 31, 2015. PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a financial and business service company operating in the Americas and Europe. The Company's primary business is the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of nonperforming loans. The Company also services receivables on behalf of clients, provides business tax revenue administration, audit, discovery and recovery services for state and local governments in the United States, and provides class action claims settlement recovery services and related payment processing to corporate clients. NASDAQ INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the lawsuit captioned Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), remains pending. The Company said: "we were named as a defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 18, 2016. Given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Nasdaq, Inc., is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public company services across six continents. The Company's global offerings are diverse and include trading and clearing across multiple asset classes, trade management services, data products, financial indexes, capital formation solutions, corporate solutions and market technology products and services. NASDAQ INC: Awaits 2nd Circuit's Action in "Lanier" Suit Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has not taken any action, as of October 26, 2016, on a petition for panel or en banc rehearing in one of the "Lanier" cases' appeal, according to Nasdaq, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company said, "we were named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches. On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints." "On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit." "On September 23, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of all three complaints, concluding that many of plaintiff's claims were preempted, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, and that, insofar as plaintiff alleged that the exchanges' implementation or operation of the NMS Plans violates the Exchange Act, plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before the SEC. Plaintiff filed a petition for panel or en banc rehearing before the Second Circuit on October 7, 2016, in one of the three appeals." "As of October 26, 2016, the Second Circuit has not taken any action on the petition. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court and the Second Circuit concluded) that the claims are without merit and intend to continue to litigate vigorously if the petition for rehearing is granted." Nasdaq, Inc., is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public company services across six continents. The Company's global offerings are diverse and include trading and clearing across multiple asset classes, trade management services, data products, financial indexes, capital formation solutions, corporate solutions and market technology products and services. NASDAQ INC: Awaits SEC's Views Over Issues in Providence Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it is awaiting comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission on whether the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case filed by the City of Providence. The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high- frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015." "On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on August 24, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an order requesting the SEC's views on whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and whether the defendants are immune from suit regarding the challenged conduct." "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and will continue to litigate vigorously." Nasdaq, Inc., is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public company services across six continents. The Company's global offerings are diverse and include trading and clearing across multiple asset classes, trade management services, data products, financial indexes, capital formation solutions, corporate solutions and market technology products and services. NAVIENT STUDENT: BlackRock Suit Parties May Pursue Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in a lawsuit filed by the BlackRock plaintiffs are currently permitted to promulgate discovery, Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-1 said in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA. On October 3, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their demurrer and motion to strike. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike. The parties are currently permitted to promulgate discovery, subject to deadlines set forth in a case management order entered on October 17, 2016. NAVIENT STUDENT: Discovery in Royal Park Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit initiated by Royal Park Investments SA/NV in New York, according to Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for alleged violations of the TIA, breach of contract and breach of trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class certification. On September 23, 2016, DBNTC filed an opposition to Royal Park's motion for class certification. Discovery is ongoing. NAVIENT STUDENT: Lord Abbett Files Amended Consolidated Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lord Abbett Funds, the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated securities action against Navient Corporation, et al., filed an amended and consolidated complaint, according to Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in several putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11, 2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 26, 2016). On April 11, 2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel in the lawsuits. On June 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the three pending cases and appointed Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff. On September 28, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff filed their Amended and Consolidated Complaint. The Navient defendants say they intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. At this stage in the proceedings, the defendants are unable to anticipate the timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the legal proceedings may have on the consolidation financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of Navient Corporation and its affiliates. NEW JERSEY, USA: Aruanno Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in "Alves" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Joseph Aruanno filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Raymond Alves, et al. v. Merrill Main, et al., Case No. 2-01-cv-00789, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Joseph Aruanno, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, previously petitioned for a writ of mandamus in connection with the District Court's alleged failure to rule on his pending motion to reopen Bagarozy, et al. v. Harris, et al., D.N.J. No. 04-cv-03066. Mr. Aruanno, who is civilly committed under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act to the Special Treatment Unit Annex in Avenel, New Jersey, is a plaintiff in a consolidated class action alleging inadequate therapeutic treatment and punitive conditions of confinement in New Jersey's STU facilities. The litigation began in 2001, with the filing of the "Alves" Case. The appellate case is captioned as Raymond Alves, et al. v. Merrill Main, et al., Case No. 16-4171, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND ALVES, MICHAEL CULBRETH and DERRICK SESSOMS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, are represented by: Jennifer B. Condon, Esq. SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 833 McCarter Highway Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 642-8700 E-mail: jenny-brooke.condon@shu.edu - and - Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. GIBBONS P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4731 Facsimile: (973) 639-6285 E-mail: llustberg@gibbonslaw.com Defendants-Appellees MERRILL MAIN, Ph.D., in his official capacity as Clinical Director of the Special Treatment Unit; COMMISSIONER NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; LYNN A. KOVICH, in her official capacity as Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Director of the New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services; and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY are represented by: David L. DaCosta, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 08625 Telephone: (609) 341-3689 E-mail: dacosdav@dol.lps.state.nj.us NEWLINK GENETICS: "Abramson" Suit Lead Plaintiffs Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiffs in the putative class action initiated by Trevor Abramson filed an amended complaint alleging violations of securities laws, NewLink Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court, against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer John B. Henneman III, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer Gordon H. Link, Jr., captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545, or the Action. On August 16, 2016, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Action. On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order providing that (i) the lead plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before October 31, 2016, (ii) the defendants shall submit a letter to the Court regarding a potential motion responsive to the amended complaint on November 15, 2016, and (iii) the lead plaintiffs shall submit a letter to the Court opposing the defendants' letter on November 22, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which asserts claims under the federal securities laws against the Company, Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, or collectively, the Defendants (no claims are asserted in the amended complaint against Messrs. Henneman or Gordon Link). The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the Phase II and III trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the 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 of September 17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company disputes the claims in the Action and intends to defend against them vigorously. NewLink Genetics Corporation was incorporated as a Delaware corporation and was formed for the purpose of developing treatments for patients with cancer and other diseases. The Company is a clinical stage immuno-oncology company focused on discovering and developing novel immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of cancer with an expertise in infectious diseases that drives specific opportunities. The Company's portfolio includes small-molecule and biologic immuno-oncology product candidates intended to treat a wide range of oncology indications. NEWS CORP: "Wilder" Stockholders Class Suit Has Been Closed ----------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lawsuit titled Wilder v. News Corp., et al., has been closed. A purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was previously filed against 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Les Hinton and the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of 21st Century Fox's common stock between July 8, 2009 and July 18, 2011 for claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World and seeking compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs. On September 30, 2015, the District Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims and on September 21, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs' time to appeal the District Court's decision expired, and the case was closed. News Corporation is a global diversified media and information services company comprised of businesses across a range of media, including: news and information services, book publishing, digital real estate services, cable network programming in Australia and pay-TV distribution in Australia. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Douvris' Motion for Joinder ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc., awaits ruling on George Douvris, et al.'s motion for joinder of HELCO as an additional defendant, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii' seeking certification of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants. The complaint purports that injury and other damages in an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an alleged toxic release by Puna Geothermal Venture in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in August 2014. On August 25, 2016, the Company filed to remove the case to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. On September 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for joinder of HELCO as an additional defendant, to amend the complaint, and to remand the case back to the Third Circuit Court. The plaintiffs' motion will be heard before the federal court in mid-November, 2016. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Ormat Technologies, Inc., is a vertically integrated company, engaged in the geothermal and recovered energy power business. The Company designs, develops, builds, sells, owns, and operates clean, environmentally friendly geothermal and recovered energy- based power plants, usually using equipment that the Company designs and manufactures. PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Oregon Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Pacific Continental Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement resolving lawsuits pending in Oregon, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively, "Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company, Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth, P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that the Bank is jointly and severally liable for materially aiding or participating in Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The current version of the complaint seeks $100 million in damages from all defendants. On August 28, 2014, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for Berjac of Oregon filed an adversary complaint (Trustee's Lawsuit) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon alleging that the Company, the Bank, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and Summit Bank provided lines of credit that enabled continuation of the alleged Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of Oregon and the two partners of the pre-existing Berjac general partnerships, Michael Holcomb and Gary Holcomb. The Company acquired Century Bank on February 1, 2013. The Trustee's Lawsuit was transferred from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Eugene Division), where it is currently pending. In addition to seeking an award of punitive damages, the trustee is asserting fraudulent transfer law and unjust enrichment in an effort to recover payments made by Berjac to Century Bank and the Bank. Among other claims for relief, the trustee is seeking the disgorgement of monies advanced to the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership by Century Bank and returned to the estate by court order following the post-petition cash collateral hearing, and of monies received by the Bank from the proceeds of the sale of stock held by the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership and securing one of the lines of credit previously held by Century Bank. The trustee also asserts a claim for alleged aiding and abetting of breaches of duties owed to Berjac. The complaint in the Trustee's Lawsuit indicates the range of damages sought by the trustee which include, among other claims for relief, an award of punitive damages not to exceed $10 million, recovery of payments associated with allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling up to approximately $55.3 million, including up to $20.7 million from Century Bank and up to $7.7 million from the Bank. This case is not currently set for trial. On November 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court judge stayed all deadlines in the Trustee's Lawsuit and all parties were ordered to participate in a judicial settlement conference. The judicial settlement conference sessions were held on February 18, 2016 and April 20, 2016. At the April 20, 2016, settlement conference, the Bank reached a tentative settlement of the Class Action and the Trustee's Lawsuit. The settlement of the Class Action will require approval of the Circuit Court judge. The Company says the settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition. Pacific Continental Corporation is a bank holding company that wholly owns Pacific Continental Bank. The Bank's wholly owned subsidiaries include PCB Services Corporation and PCB Loan Services Corporation. PERFORMANCE FOOD: Agrees to Settle "Wilder" Suit for $2.3 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Performance Food Group Company indicated its non-binding agreement to settle the lawsuit styled Wilder, et al. v. Roma Food Enterprises, Inc., et al., on the basis of a settlement fund of $2.3 million, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2016. The Company said: "In October 2014, three former delivery drivers who worked in our former Roma of New Jersey warehouse in Piscataway, New Jersey filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County against us. The lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of delivery drivers who worked in our Roma, broadline and Vistar facilities in New Jersey from October 2012 to the present that, under New Jersey state law, we failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to the delivery drivers in these facilities. The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) award of unpaid minimum wages and overtime under New Jersey state law; (2) an injunction preventing us from committing the alleged violation; (3) a declaration from the court that the alleged violations were knowing and willful; (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and (5) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The case is in the preliminary phases of discovery, and no class has been certified. The plaintiffs have expressed their desire to include temporary delivery drivers in the alleged class; however, the court has not ruled as to whether those temporary workers may join the lawsuit." "On October 4, 2016, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiffs, and on October 25, 2016, we indicated our non-binding agreement to settle the lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $2.3 million, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement agreement and receipt of court approval of that agreement. As of October 1, 2016 the Company accrued $2.3 million for this settlement. Performance Food Group Company, through its subsidiaries, markets and distributes national and company-branded food and food-related products to customer locations across the United States. The Company serves both of the major customer types in the restaurant industry: (i) independent, or "Street" customers, and (ii) multi- unit, or "Chain" customers, which include regional and national family and casual dining restaurant chains, fast casual chains, and quick-service restaurants. The Company also serves schools, healthcare facilities, business and industry locations, and other institutional customers. PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Defends Suits Arising From Line 901 Incident ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is defending against lawsuits arising from the Line 901 incident, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In May 2015, the Company experienced a crude oil release from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, the Company shut down the pipeline and initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline monitoring. The Company's current "worst case" estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that the Company believed could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels. The Company said, "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we are processing those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release, including potential classes such as persons that derive a significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release. We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages." Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership formed on July 17, 2013, to own an interest in the general partner and incentive distribution rights of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership. PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Line 901 Spill Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities lawsuit arising from the Line 901 incident remains pending, according to Plains GP Holdings, L.P.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. In May 2015, the Company experienced a crude oil release from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, the Company shut down the pipeline and initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline monitoring. The Company's current "worst case" estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that the Company believed could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels. There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. ("PAA") and/or PAGP Plains GP Holdings, L.P. ("PAGP") against PAA, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of PAA's pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in PAA and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The Company said: "PAA and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters." Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership formed on July 17, 2013, to own an interest in the general partner and incentive distribution rights of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership. PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Suit Over Pocahontas Pump Release Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed in connection with the Pocahontas Pump crude oil release has been voluntarily dismissed, Plains GP Holdings, L.P., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. The Company said: "On July 10, 2015, we experienced a crude oil release of approximately 100 barrels at our Pocahontas Pump Station near the border of Bond and Madison Counties in Illinois, approximately 40 miles from St. Louis, Missouri. The Pocahontas Station is part of the Capwood pipeline that runs from our Patoka Station to Wood River, Illinois. A portion of the released crude oil was contained within our Pocahontas facility, but some of the released crude oil entered a nearby waterway where it was contained with booms. On July 14, 2015, PHMSA issued a corrective action order requiring us to take various actions in response to the release, including remediation, reporting and other actions. As of December 18, 2015, we had submitted all requested information and reports required by the corrective action order and are currently awaiting PHMSA's comment or approval." "On August 10, 2015, we received a Notice of Violation from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency") alleging violations relating to the release and outlining the activities recommended by the Agency to resolve the alleged violations, including the completion of an investigation and various remediation activities. The Agency approved a work plan describing remediation activities proposed for remaining hydrocarbons at Pocahontas Station and affected waterways. Remediation activities under this work plan have effectively been completed, and on December 17, 2015, we entered into a Compliance Commitment Agreement with the Agency, which provides the framework for final completion and documentation of the remediation effort. On April 15, 2016, the Agency confirmed that all of the activities required by the Compliance Commitment Agreement had been completed and that the violations associated with the incident had been resolved. To date, no fines or penalties have been assessed in this matter; however, it remains possible that fines and penalties could be assessed in the future." "In connection with this incident, we have also had one class action lawsuit filed against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which was subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. We estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to this release will be less than $10 million." Plains GP Holdings, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership formed on July 17, 2013, to own an interest in the general partner and incentive distribution rights of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership. POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Appeal in "Kwasnik" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Powercomm Construction, Inc., and David Kwasnik, Sr., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gregory Randolph v. Powercomm Construction, Inc., Case No. 8:13- cv-01696-GJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Gregory Randolph v. Powercomm Construction, Inc., Case No. 16-2370, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee GREGORY RANDOLPH, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Scott Oswald, Esq. EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 888 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 261-2803 E-mail: soswald@employmentlawgroup.com Plaintiffs-Appellees GREGORY RANDOLPH, DANA BROWN, TWANDA BANISTER, GREGORY EUBANKS, ARTHUR HINNANT, EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY, RHASAAN DARK, RODNEY WILLIAMS, KENNETH JACKSON, GEORGE MILES, JAMAL DREW, KENNETH SEARLES, DEXTER ANDERSON, BERNARD BROWN, NATESHIA DECHE BEASLEY, EUNICE MELTON, ROBIN MELTON, EARNEST LEE ALLEN, JR., SHANINA WASHINGTON, MELVIN L. WEBB-BEY, SYLVIOUS WILLIAMS, FASIL ALEMAYEHU, AMISHA BENNETT, EDWARD ROBINSON, DANIELLE SMITH, RONALD WALL, ROY BENNETT, MELQUIN GAINO, LESLIE GROSS, ANTONIO WALL, LAMONT NEWTON, ANTHONY WILLS, LAMARR YOUNG, MICHELLE BENNETT, RODNEY BROOKS, LARRY JEFFERSON, LENARD PRINGLE, JUSTIN FOSTER, EDDIE PERKINS, SEAN E. PITTMAN, JIMMIE MISSOURI, KEVIN SORRELL, TERENCE BROWN, TERRANCE DOVE, ERIC SHEFFEY, TERRELL TWITTY, JEFF JORDAN, SAMUEL HEGWOOD, JOHNNY BOYKIN, BERNARD BENNETT, LAVELLE GANT, DONALD RAY JONES, CORNELIUS REDFEARN, DARNELL MADDOX, RONALD YOUNG, CALVIN GORHAM and WILLIAM HOLLAND are represented by: Nicholas Woodfield, Esq. EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 888 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 261-2812 E-mail: nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com Defendants-Appellants POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION, INC., and DAVID KWASNIK, SR., are represented by: Robert A. Battey, Esq. Geoffrey M. Bohn, Esq. BOHN & KOURETAS, PLC P. O. Box 17811 Arlington, VA 22216 Telephone: (703) 599-7076 QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Has Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quotient Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the consolidated litigation arising from its initial public offering has concluded since the Defendants did not appeal the final judgment. On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the members of its board of directors, certain of its executive officers and the underwriters of the Company's IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC- 15-544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act and sought unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's IPO. Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15- CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015). On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the amended consolidated complaint without leave to amend on May 25, 2016, and on July 13, 2016 entered final judgment in the Company's favor. The lawsuit has concluded since the defendants did not appeal the judgment. Quotient Technology Inc. is a provider of digital promotions and media solutions driven by consumer-shopping data. The Company connects consumer packaged goods brands and retailers with shoppers by delivering digital promotions and media to shoppers through mobile, web and social channels. REALPAGE INC: E.D. Virginia Refuses to Dismiss "Jenkins" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit captioned Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company said, "In November 2014, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This case has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Spokeo case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Jenkins case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision." On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company says it intends to defend this case vigorously. RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software- enabled services for the rental housing and vacation rental industries. The Company's broad range of property management solutions enables owners and managers of a wide variety of single family, multifamily, and vacation rental property types to enhance the visibility, control, and profitability of each portion of the renter life cycle and operation of a property. REALPAGE INC: Fails to Win Nod to Dismiss "Stokes" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit titled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection with background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case addressed issues related to standing to bring claims related to the FCRA. On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Spokeo litigation, vacating the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanding the case for further consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Stokes case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss." The Company says it intends to defend this case vigorously. RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software- enabled services for the rental housing and vacation rental industries. The Company's broad range of property management solutions enables owners and managers of a wide variety of single family, multifamily, and vacation rental property types to enhance the visibility, control, and profitability of each portion of the renter life cycle and operation of a property. ROCKET FUEL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Rocket Fuel Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors at the time. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the initial public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and the secondary offering on February 5, 2014 (the "Secondary Offering") were also named as defendants. These actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, was filed on February 27, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the ability of the Company's technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and about Rocket Fuel's future prospects. The consolidated complaint also alleged that the Company's registration statements and prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated complaint purported to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 (the "Exchange Act" claims), and for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act" claims), on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those who purchased stock in the IPO, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering. The consolidated complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on December 23, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the Securities Act claims and all but one of the statements on which the Exchange Act claims were based. The court also dismissed all claims against the outside directors and the underwriters of the Company's public offerings. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it continues to vigorously defend itself against this purported class action. Rocket Fuel Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on March 25, 2008, and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. The Company is a provider of artificial-intelligence digital advertising solutions. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Suit Claims' Processing Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' claims in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust Litigation are subject to an ongoing claims administration process in the Bankruptcy Court, according to SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016. To the extent that allowed claims are properly characterized as pre-petition general unsecured claims, such claims would be limited to a portion of the amount of consideration set aside for such claims under the Plan, which consists of cash, shares of the Company's common stock and warrants (the "GUC Pool"). On March 3, 2016, Brian Thieme filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties containing producing oil and natural gas wells located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On April 15, 2016, the court consolidated the Thieme lawsuit under the caption "In re Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust Litigation" with eleven additional subsequently filed lawsuits alleging similar violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act. The plaintiffs' claims are subject to an ongoing claims administration process in the Bankruptcy Court. The claims may be disallowed and receive no recovery under the Plan or, if subsequently allowed by a final and nonappealable order of the Bankruptcy Court, may receive only the partial recovery from the GUC Pool to which general unsecured claims are entitled under the Plan. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Exploration Unit Faces "West" Suit in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, is facing a putative class action lawsuit in Oklahoma initiated by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, according to SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016. On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their complaint, plaintiffs assert various tort claims seeking relief for damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for injury to property and for the purchase of insurance policies allegedly needed by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of wastewater disposal wells. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Gernandt Will Not Recover Anything Under Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Upon the effectiveness of SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s plan of reorganization, the Plaintiff's claims in the consolidated lawsuit filed by Barton Gernandt, Jr., et al., will be discharged without recovery under the Plan, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016. On July 30, 2015, Barton Gernandt, Jr., filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company, certain of its current and former officers, and the Company's former directors, among other defendants, on behalf of participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "401(k) Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose 401(k) Plan accounts included investments in the Company's common stock. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the 401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the investment of the 401(k) Plan's assets in the Company's common stock. On September 10, 2015, the court consolidated the Gernandt lawsuit with two additional subsequently filed lawsuits alleging similar ERISA violations, and the plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated class action complaint. Upon the effectiveness of the Plan, the Company says, the plaintiffs' claims against the Company were discharged without recovery under the Plan. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Lanier Trust Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing --------------------------------------------------------------- Upon the effectiveness of SandRidge Energy, Inc.'s plan of reorganization, the Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit initiated by Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust will be discharged without recovery under the Plan, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016. On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company, certain of its current and former officers, and the Company's former directors, among other defendants, on behalf of certain purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I and Mississippian Trust II. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with this lawsuit. Upon the effectiveness of the Plan, the Company says, the plaintiff's claims against the Company were discharged without recovery under the Plan. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Processing of "Peck" Claims Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Mickey Peck's claims are subject to an ongoing claims administration process in the Bankruptcy Court. On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016. To the extent that allowed claims are properly characterized as pre-petition general unsecured claims, such claims would be limited to a portion of the amount of consideration set aside for such claims under the Plan, which consists of cash, shares of the Company's common stock and warrants (the "GUC Pool"). On November 18, 2015, Mickey Peck filed a collective action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and SandRidge Operating Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Company improperly classified certain of its consultants as independent contractors rather than as employees and, therefore, improperly paid such consultants a day rate without paying any overtime compensation. On January 14, 2016, the court entered an order conditionally certifying the class and providing for notice. The plaintiffs' claims are subject to an ongoing claims administration process in the Bankruptcy Court. The claims may be disallowed and receive no recovery under the Plan or, if subsequently allowed by a final and nonappealable order of the Bankruptcy Court, may receive only the partial recovery from the GUC Pool to which general unsecured claims are entitled under the Plan. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Suit Claims Will Recover Nothing ------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that upon the effectiveness of its plan of reorganization, the claims of the Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities lawsuit will be discharged without recovery under the Plan. On May 16, 2016, the Company and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors' subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma asserting federal securities law claims against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone filed a substantially similar class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation." On July 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting federal securities law claims against the Company, certain of its current and former officers, and the Company's former directors, among other defendants, on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock and certain purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I and the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts"). On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Mississippian Trusts and the underwriter defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the individual defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second consolidated amended complaint naming as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers. Upon the effectiveness of the Plan, the plaintiffs' claims against the Company were discharged without recovery under the Plan. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. SHRED-IT USA: Kirchner Appeals From E.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kirchner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Michael Kirchner v. Shred-It USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01437-WBS-EFB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted final approval of the class settlement in the Case in 2015. The appellate case is captioned as Michael Kirchner v. Shred-It USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-17210, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by December 29, 2016; -- Transcript is due on January 30, 2017; -- Appellant Michael Kirchner's opening brief is due on March 9, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees First Advantage Background Services Corp. and Shred-It USA, Inc., is due on April 10, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL KIRCHNER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883-4900 Facsimile: (838) 883-4902 E-mail: Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com Defendant-Appellee SHRED-IT USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com Defendant-Appellee FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP. is represented by: Mark P. Grajski, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: mgrajski@seyfarth.com SLM STUDENT: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park vs. Deutsche Bank -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit commenced by Royal Park Investments SA/NV against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 said in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in 10 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for alleged violations of the TIA, breach of contract and breach of trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class certification. On September 23, 2016, DBNTC filed an opposition to Royal Park's motion for class certification. Discovery is ongoing. SLM STUDENT: Lead Plaintiff Amends Securities Suit vs. Navient -------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016, that the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated securities against Navient Corporation, et al., has filed an amended and consolidated complaint. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in several putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11, 2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 26, 2016). On April 11, 2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel in the lawsuits. On June 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the three pending cases and appointed Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff. On September 28, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff filed their Amended and Consolidated Complaint. The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. At this stage in the proceedings, the Trust is unable to anticipate the timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the legal proceedings may have on the consolidation financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of Navient Corporation and its affiliates. SLM STUDENT: Parties in BlackRock Suit May Promulgate Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit initiated by BlackRock plaintiffs against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas are currently permitted to promulgate discovery, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the distribution period from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA. On October 3, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their demurrer and motion to strike. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike. The parties are currently permitted to promulgate discovery, subject to deadlines set forth in a case management order entered on October 17, 2016. STARZ: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Merger With Lions Gate Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starz is defending itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit challenging its merger with a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On June 30, 2016, Starz entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., a corporation organized and existing under the corporate laws of British Columbia, and Orion Arm Acquisition Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lions Gate. The Merger Agreement provides that Merger Sub will merge with and into Starz, with Starz continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lions Gate. Between July 19, 2016 and July 29, 2016, six putative class action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Freedman v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12571-VCG; Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12584-VCG; The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12596-VCG; City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12598-VCG; Norfolk County Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12599-VCG; and City of Providence v. Starz, et al., C.A. No. 12604-VCG. On August 16, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating these six putative class actions into one consolidated action, In re Starz Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG. On August 30, 2016, a seventh putative class action was filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Teamsters Local 170 Pension Fund v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 12705, which was later added to the consolidated action. The verified consolidated class action complaint names as defendants Starz; Dr. John C. Malone; Mark H. Rachesky; Greg Maffei; Robert R. Bennett; Deborah J. Bennett; Irving L. Azoff; Susan M. Lyne; Christopher P. Albrecht; Daniel E. Sanchez; Robert S. Wiesenthal; Andrew T. Heller; Jeffrey F. Sagansky; Charles Y. Tanabe; Hilltop Investments, LLC; Leslie Malone; The Tracey L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Starz Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain adequate consideration for the Merger and that other defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted the board in breaching their fiduciary duties. In two counts, the consolidated complaint asserts a claim for breaches of fiduciary duty against Dr. Malone and the Starz Board of Directors, as well as a claim for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty against Dr. Malone, Robert Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Hilltop Investments LLC, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mark H. Rachesky, Lions Gate, and Orion Arm. The consolidated class action complaint seeks damages, rescission of the merger, costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other equitable relief. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for expedited proceedings; on September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion. On August 9, 2016, an eighth putative class action complaint was filed by a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al., 2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 7, 2016, the Colorado court entered an order granting a joint motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint by and including November 9, 2016. Defendants believe that the complaints are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously. Starz is an integrated global media and entertainment company. The Company provides premium subscription video programming in the U.S. to cable operators, satellite television providers, telecommunications companies and online video providers, and to OTT subscribers via the Starz app. The Company also develops, produces and acquires entertainment content and distributes this content to consumers in the U.S. and throughout the world. TEXAS, USA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dunsmore" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard A. Dunsmore filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Richard Dunsmore v. TDCJ C.T. Terrell Unit, et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-93, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston. Plaintiff-Appellant RICHARD A. DUNSMORE, Individually and Drawing Attention to Similarly Situated Victimized Persons/Privity Parties, is incarcerated at the CID C.T. Terrell Prison, located at 1300 FM 655, in Rosharon, Texas. In his lawsuit, he asserts violations of prisoner civil rights. The Defendants-Appellees are TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE C.T. TERRELL UNIT, MICHAEL BUTCHER, STATE OF TEXAS and BYRON GRANT. The appellate case is captioned as Richard Dunsmore v. TDCJ C.T. Terrell Unit, et al., Case No. 16-41596, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Initial case check by Attorney Advisor is complete, and case is OK to process; -- Initial AA Check Due is satisfied; and -- Awaiting DC Action (IFPPDC) is due on December 15, 2016. VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' appeal from an order granting Vivint Solar, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration remains pending, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. On September 9, 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern County), alleging violation of California Business and Professional Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to Section 1689 of the California Civil Code. The complaint seeks: (1) rescission of their power purchase agreements along with restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 16, 2015, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the power purchase agreements, which the Court granted and dismissed the class claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the Court's order. The Company says it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vivint Solar, Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on August 12, 2011. The Company primarily offers solar energy to residential customers through long-term customer contracts, such as power purchase agreements and solar energy system leases. The Company also offers customers the option to purchase solar energy systems. VIVINT SOLAR: Awaits Appellate Decision on "Hyatt" Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc., awaits ruling on an appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015. On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on December 10, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On January 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 25, 2016, the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal. The Company says it is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Vivint Solar, Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on August 12, 2011. The Company primarily offers solar energy to residential customers through long-term customer contracts, such as power purchase agreements and solar energy system leases. The Company also offers customers the option to purchase solar energy systems. VIVINT SOLAR: Has Paid $1.7-Mil. in Calif. Suit Settlement Fund --------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it paid the $1.7 million gross settlement fund to the settlement claim administrator as agreed by the parties in a class action lawsuit in California. In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification of installer technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide wages on termination. In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same allegations. On November 5, 2015, the parties agreed to preliminary terms of a settlement of all claims related to allegations in the complaint in return for the Company's payment of $1.7 million to be paid out to the purported class members, which was accrued at that time. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on September 30, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the Company made payment of the $1.7 million gross settlement fund to the settlement claim administrator. Vivint Solar, Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on August 12, 2011. The Company primarily offers solar energy to residential customers through long-term customer contracts, such as power purchase agreements and solar energy system leases. The Company also offers customers the option to purchase solar energy systems. WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Zouzout" Consumer Class Action Suit in Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wayfair Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by Naomi Zouzout alleging violations of various Canadian consumer protection statutes, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In September 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the province of Quebec (Naomi Zouzout v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. PQ 500-06-000809- 166) by an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals alleging violations of various Canadian consumer protection statutes. Among other remedies, this lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive money damages, costs, and various fees. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. Wayfair Inc. is an e-commerce business offering visually inspiring browsing, compelling merchandising, easy product discovery and attractive prices for over seven million products from over 7,000 suppliers across five distinct brands -- Wayfair, Joss & Main, AllModern, DwellStudio, and Birch Lane. WEX INC: Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The putative class action lawsuit filed in Missouri alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains pending, WEX Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On August 11, 2016, the Company was sued in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri, in a putative class action alleging the Company improperly sent unauthorized facsimile advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (the "TCPA"). The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of recipients of unauthorized facsimile advertisements from the Company (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") and requests statutory damages for each facsimile advertisement. The Plaintiffs further allege that the opt-out notice of the faxes did not meet the criteria set forth in the TCPA or its underlying regulations. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on September 15, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an answer denying liability and stating the facsimile advertisement at issue was sent by FleetOne, LLC, Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. The Company says it is currently conducting an internal review of this matter and intends to vigorously defend itself. The current estimate of a reasonably possible loss contingency is not material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. WEX Inc. is a provider of corporate card payment solutions. The Company currently operates in three business segments: Fleet Solutions, Travel and Corporate Solutions, and Health and Employee Benefit Solutions. XPO LOGISTICS: Contractors Suits vs. Units Still in Initial Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuits brought by independent contractors of XPO Logistics, Inc.'s intermodal drayage subsidiaries are currently in the initial pleading stage, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. There are other putative class action litigation matters pending against the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries in which the plaintiffs claim they should have been classified as employees, rather than independent contractors, and seek damages for alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. These cases include the following matters filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles District: C. Arevalo v. XPO Port Services, Inc. filed in August 2015; H. Lopez v. PDS Transportation filed in January 2016; M. Cortez v. Pacer filed in June 2016; and the following case filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: I. Hernandez v. Pacer filed in May 2016. Certain of these potential claimants also may have Pending DLSE Claims, and may be subject to binding arbitration obligations. These matters are in the initial pleading stage and the courts have not yet determined whether to certify the matters as a class action. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to these claims. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: Defends Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc., continues to defend certain of its last mile logistics subsidiaries against lawsuits alleging misclassification of employees, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are pending in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005, currently in the Federal District Court, Southern District of California; Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016 in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County; and Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015 in the Federal District Court, New Jersey); Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Pennsylvania); and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015 in the Federal District Court, Connecticut). The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile TCPA Claims Still in Initial Stages ------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is still in the initial pleading stage, according to XPO Logistics, Inc.'s November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016. The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation (Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer call system used by a last mile logistics business that the Company acquired. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to this matter. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of this matter given, among other reasons, that the Company is vigorously defending the matter and believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses and that it remains uncertain what evidence of their claims and damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: Payments in "Mendoza" Case Settlement Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the administration of settlement payments in the lawsuit entitled Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc., is yet to be completed. One of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries also is a party to a putative class action litigation (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina on August 19, 2013 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be classified as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws on behalf of himself and all owner- operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 19, 2009 to April 29, 2016. Certain of these potential claimants also may have Pending DLSE Claims. The Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation with the claimant. The Court has approved the settlement agreement, and it has been accepted by 520 members of the putative class. The administration of settlement payments is yet to be completed. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: Settles "Pina" Wage and Hour Suit vs. LTL Unit ------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc., has settled a purported class action lawsuit against a Less-Than-Truckload subsidiary alleging violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. The Company's Less-Than-Truckload ("LTL") subsidiary is a party to several class action litigations alleging violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege failure to provide drivers with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case"). The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. The Company has reached an agreement to settle the Pina case, which has been tentatively approved by the court, but is subject to further legal challenge after notice of the settlement is sent to purported class members. Until the challenge period elapses, the Company says there can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be approved. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Sends Reinsurance Issue to NY App. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The appeals case captioned GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, successor in interest to CONSTITUTION REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, successor in interest to CCI INSURANCE COMPANY, successor in interest to INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Docket No. 15-2164-cv (2d Cir.), arises out of a dispute between Century Indemnity Company and Global Reinsurance Corporation of America over the extent to which Global is obligated to reinsure Century pursuant to certain reinsurance certificates. In this case, between 1971 and 1980, Century issued nine reinsurance certificates with Global. The certificates provided that Global would reinsure specified portions of general liability insurance policies that Century had issued to Caterpillar Tractor Company. In this arrangement, Century is known as the "ceding insurer" because it is "ceding" or spreading its risk of loss among one or more reinsurers. Beginning in 1988, thousands of lawsuits were filed against Caterpillar alleging bodily injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A coverage dispute the arose between Century and Caterpillar, and both companies filed suit in Illinois seeking declaratory judgments concerning their obligations under the insurance policies. As a result of the Illinois litigation, Century became obligated to reimburse Caterpillar for defense expenses in addition to the indemnity limits of the policies. Global alleges that Century has already paid more than $60 million to Caterpillar and has agreed to pay an additional $30.5 million. Global further alleges that only about 10% of this amount represents what Century refers to as "loss," whereas about 90% represents what Century refers to as "expenses." Century then sought reimbursement from Global for portions of its payments to Caterpillar pursuant to the reinsurance certificates. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lorna G. Schofield, J.) held that the dollar amount stated in the "Reinsurance Accepted" section of the certificates unambiguously caps the amount that Global can be obligated to pay Century for both "losses" and "expenses" combined. Century contends that Global is obligated to pay expenses in addition to the amount stated in the "Reinsurance Accepted" provision and that, at a minimum, the district court erred in concluding that the certificates were unambiguous. Because this case presents an important question of New York law that the New York Court of Appeals has never directly addressed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the following question: Does the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Excess Insurance Co. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 3 N.Y.3d 577 (2004), impose either a rule of construction, or a strong presumption, that a per occurrence liability cap in a reinsurance contract limits the total reinsurance available under the contract to the amount of the cap regardless of whether the underlying policy is understood to cover expenses such as, for instance, defense costs? A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 8, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/DxF53Z from Leagle.com. JONATHAN HACKER, Esq. -- jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, (Daryn E. Rush, Esq. -- rushd@whiteandwilliams.com -- Ellen K. Burrows, Esq. -- burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and Williams LLP, Philadelphia, PA, on the brief) Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant. DAVID L. PITCHFORD, Pitchford Law Group LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee. STEVEN C. SCHWARTZ, Esq. -- s.schwartz@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, (Peter R. Chaffetz, Esq. -- peter.chaffetz@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Gretta L. Walters, on the brief), New York, NY, for on Benfield U.S.; Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC; JLT Re (North America Inc.); and Willis Re Inc., as amicus curiae supporting Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Summary Judgment in "Linsowe" Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeals case captioned SHARRON LINSOWE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. B263726 (Cal. App.), which is related to the so-called "LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES," the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, reversed the summary judgment in favor of defendant Honeywell International, Inc., successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation. The case arose following the death of Henry Linsowe. The Plaintiffs, Linsowe's wife and sons, alleged that while Linsowe was a career brake mechanic working on Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles, he was exposed to asbestos-containing brake parts supplied by defendant Honeywell. Honeywell moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not present a triable issue of fact as to whether Linsowe was exposed to asbestos- containing Bendix products. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals of California reversed, holding that evidence demonstrated that during the time Linsowe worked on Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles, Bendix supplied asbestos-containing brake parts for many of those cars. Some evidence directly connected Linsowe's work with specific models of vehicles that contained Bendix parts. This evidence was sufficient to establish a triable issue as to whether Linsowe was exposed to Bendix brake parts, and the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, the Court of Appeals of California concluded. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 7, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/hqSp2s from Leagle.com. For Plaintiffs and Appellants: John C. Heubeck, Esq. Marc A. Lowe, Esq. HEUBECK LAW, P.C. 400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: 310-426-2043 Horvitz & Levy, Curt Cutting, Esq. -- ccutting@horvitzlevy.com -- John A. Taylor, Jr., Esq. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com; Ongaro, David R. Ongaro, Nevin C. Brownfield for Defendants and Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puget Sound No Longer a Defendant in "Johnson" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARCELLA JOHNSON, as Successor-in-Interest to and as Wrongful Death Heir of RICHARD JOHNSON, Deceased; and DEVIN JOHNSON, TIFFANEY JOHNSON, as Wrongful Death Heirs of RICHARD JOHNSON, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC (FKA GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION), et al., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv- 02664-EMC (N.D. Calif.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, approved a stipulation dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against Defendant Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc. (fka Todd Shipyards Corporation), pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 3/27/17 jury trial and trial related deadlines are vacated. A full-text copy of the Order dated December 6, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/MZaC7y from Leagle.com. Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP. Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP. Marcella Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP. Devin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP. Tiffaney Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP. Puget Sound Commerce Center Inc, Defendant, represented by Demian David Steele, Yaron & Associates, George D. Yaron, Yaron & Associates & Michael C. Guasco, Yaron & Associates. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company on behalf of its suspended insured Associated Insulation of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Eric Sandgren, Esq. -- msandgren@selmanlaw.com -- Selman Breitman LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACL Directed to Produce Docs in Take-Home Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WILLIAM NEY, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of LORETTA NEY, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 16-2408 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies the motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiff against Asbestos Corporation Limited but granted the plaintiff's request to compel ACL to produce discovery but on a more limited scale than previously sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued ACL, among others, alleging that Loretta Ney, now deceased, was exposed to asbestos contained in the defendants' products when she was a child living with her father who worked as an asbestos insulator for Bethlehem Steel from 1948 to 1953. Ms. Ney's father allegedly brought particles of asbestos home in his car and on his clothes. Ms. Ney contends that she came into contact with asbestos particles when she rode in her father's car or laundered his clothing. On or about November 29, 2012, Ms. Ney was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Magistrate Rueter held, among other things, that the Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to determine whether ACL's raw asbestos fiber is a component in the asbestos product to which the plaintiff's father allegedly was exposed. Magistrate Rueter also pointed out that the evidence the Plaintiff is seeking from ACL is not cumulative, is relevant, is not specific but wide-ranging in scope. Because the state court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion to compel is vacated, Magistrate Rueter will deny the Motions for Sactions. A full-text copy of the Memorandum of Decision dated December 6, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/I7KcXW and accompanying Order is available at https://is.gd/CIS2RZ from Leagle.com. WILLIAM NEY, Plaintiff, represented by JACQUELINE P. GRUHLER, Esq. -- jgruhler@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC. WILLIAM NEY, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM L. KUZMIN, Esq. -- wkuzmin@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC. OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, represented by M. DENISE MORETZ, Esq. -- dmoretz@wmbac.com -- WOOLF MCCLAIN BRIGHT ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC, pro hac vice, RANDOLPH L. BURNS, THE BURNS LAW FIRM PC, pro hac vice, GLENN P. CALLAHAN, MCCARTER ENGLISH LLP & INGRID H. GRAFF, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant, represented by JANET E. GOLUP, KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Cross Claimant, represented by JANET E. GOLUP, KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Cross Defendant, represented by JANET E. GOLUP, KILCOYNE & NESBITT, LLC. OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by M. DENISE MORETZ, WOOLF MCCLAIN BRIGHT ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC, pro hac vice, RANDOLPH L. BURNS, THE BURNS LAW FIRM PC, pro hac vice, GLENN P. CALLAHAN, MCCARTER ENGLISH LLP & INGRID H. GRAFF, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversity Show Cause Order Issued in "Schmidt" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Case Corp., f/k/a Case Equipment Corp., to show cause by December 15, 2016, whether the Court has jurisdiction over the case captioned JAMES SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. CASE CORP. f/k/a CASE EQUIPMENT CORP., Defendant, No. 3:16-cv-01995 (JAM)(D. Conn.), by filing the proper signed statements about the diversity of the parties, whether the defendant intends to move to substitute the correct party in interest, and whether the intended party in interest is completely diverse from the plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Order dated December 8, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/3N82RA from Leagle.com. James Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry & Neusner. Case Corp, Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin, Esq. -- rmartin@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote's Suit vs. Aviva Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, approved the stipulation between The Flintkote Company and The Flintkote Asbestos Trust and Aviva PLC, Aviva International Insurance, Ltd., and Ocean Marine Insurance Company Limited to dismiss, with prejudice, the action styled THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY and THE FLINTKOTE TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. AVIVA PLC, AVIVA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE, LTD. and OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-01638-SI (N.D. Calif.), pursuant to the Parties' settlement agreement, which has been approved by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and contains an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolving conflicts thereunder. The case involves several insurance policies, including an agreement concerning asbestos-related claims, and a 1989 agreement between Flintkote and The Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd. Despite the complexity of the insurance dispute, the first issue here is whether Aviva may substitute The Ocean Marine Insurance Company in its place as the sole defendant in the action. The second issue is whether Flintkote, which underwent a bankruptcy plan of reorganization, may add The Flintkote Trust as a plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Stipulation dated December 6, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/G7aC2A from Leagle.com. Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, represented by Marc S. Maister, Irell & Manella LLP. Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Collins Smith, McCarter & English, LLP, Cathy Tran Moses, Irell and Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English LLP, pro hac vice, Louis A. Chiafullo, McCarter and English, pro hac vice & Michael Richard Fehner, Irell & Manella LLP. Flintkote Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Marc S. Maister, Irell & Manella LLP, Michael Collins Smith, McCarter & English, LLP, Cathy Tran Moses, Irell and Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English LLP, pro hac vice, Louis A. Chiafullo, McCarter and English, pro hac vice & Michael Richard Fehner, Irell & Manella LLP. Aviva PLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and Co. LLP. The Ocean Marin Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and Co. LLP. Aviva International Insurance Limited, Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and Co. LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pudsey Widow Seeks Info From Husband Co-Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathie Griffiths, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that a widow who believes she was exposed to asbestos decades ago while washing her husband's clothes is appealing for his former workmates to come forward with information. Annie Place, known as Nancy, who is 85 and lives in Pudsey, hopes people who worked with her husband Rowland when he was a maintenance man will get in touch with details about their working conditions. Mrs Place has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs, and has instructed asbestos experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate her case. Exposure to asbestos can lead to people developing mesothelioma in later life. The disease is caused by inhaling asbestos dust and it can take years for symptoms to appear. Mr Place, known as Rowly to his friends, died 11 years ago, aged 78, from lung cancer after more than 50 years of marriage. He had worked as a French polisher and shop fitter for various employers when the couple first met, and later worked as a maintenance man for Executex, also known as Black & Luper, a tailoring factory in Kirkstall Road, Leeds, from 1962 to 1971. After that he went on to work as a machine operator at Howson Aligraphy, which over the years was also known as Eastman Colour, DuPont and Vickers, in Leeds from 1971 to 1989. Solicitors acting for Mrs Place want to speak to some of Rowland's former colleagues, from any of his former jobs, to find out about his working conditions and to try and establish where he may have come into contact with asbestos. Ian Toft, an expert in asbestos-related disease cases at Irwin Mitchell, who is acting for Mrs Place, said: "We would like to hear from Rowland's former colleagues as they may have additional information about the presence of asbestos and working conditions that could help in Nancy's legal battle." The grandmother-of-two said: "When I was told my diagnosis, I was distraught, but knowing the cause of my illness may be due to Rowly's former employers is a particularly bitter pill to swallow. I lost him due to lung problems 11 years ago and now I'm suffering from similar issues. "I'm hoping his former colleagues will get in touch as they may have extra information that could help in my battle for justice." Anyone who thinks they may be able to help should contact Ian Toft on 0113 218 6453 or email Ian.Toft@irwinmitchell.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Husband's Anglesey Co-Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- Dale Spridgeon, writing for News North Wales, reported that a widow is appealing for help to find her husband's former Anglesey and Gwynedd work colleagues after he died from asbestos-related lung disease. Bill Royston-Haines died aged 72 in March 2014 from asbestosis, a lung disease, caused by breathing in asbestos dust and fibres. Now his widow, Pam, is eager to hear from anyone who worked for Calveley Heating Ltd, based in Llangefni, or Gwynedd County Council during the 1970s. Mr Royston-Haines was a plumber and heating engineer for Calveley from 1971-74 and 1977-78 and for Gwynedd County Council from 1974- 77. The couple lived in Benllech around 1971 and later in Valley. Mr Royston-Haines travelled widely across North Wales, working in industrial, commercial, public and residential properties. The couple also owned the Valley Stores and Valley post office where they were postmaster and mistress. Asbestos was widely used in buildings including homes, schools, factories and council buildings for its fire-proof and insulation properties. It was Mr Royston-Haines' job to strip out old boilers and replace pipes, which would have contained asbestos. Married for 50 years, Mr Royston-Haines also left behind a daughter, four grandchildren and two great grandchildren. With the help of the National Asbestos Helpline and Birchall Blackburn Law, Mrs Royston Haines and her family are looking for her husband's 1970's work colleagues, who might remember finding asbestos in buildings where plumbing and engineering work was carried out. Mrs Royston-Haines, who now lives in Nottingham, said: "There were no masks or anything like that in those days. "In recent years Bill had started to hear of a lot of people his age dying of asbestos exposure. He said that he'd got to the age of 72 and would be all right, but it got him in the end. "We think he was diagnosed with the lung disease so late because he was determined to get on with it. Even after he was diagnosed, he didn't give up. "He was still cutting the hedge and we thought he'd got it under control." Asbestosis affects people exposed to high levels of asbestos. Once inhaled, the asbestos fibres lodge in the lungs and over time damages air sacs that supply oxygen to the blood. It has no cure and can severely restrict breathing and leaves sufferers breathlessness, with chest pains and coughing. Jan Garvey from the National Asbestos Helpline, said: "We talk to people like Pam every day. "They're active and looking forward to the rest of their lives with their family but suddenly face a terrible illness and uncertainty. The asbestos legacy continues to destroy people's lives." Fiona Hendry, asbestos-disease specialist with Birchall Blackburn Law, said: "We would like to hear from anyone who worked for Gwynedd County Council's heating engineers unit during the 1970s or also worked for Calveley Heating Ltd. "They may have worked with Bill Haines or know about asbestos where he worked. Details will remain confidential." Call Fiona Hendry on 01244 684 475 or Jan Garvey on freephone 0800 043 6635, or email fxhendry@birchallblackburn.co.uk. For information, go to www.nationalasbestos.co.uk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Probing on Husband Asbestos-Related Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Willmott, writing for Coventry Observer, reported that the widow of a carpenter who died just months after being diagnosed to asbestos-related cancer has demanded to know why her husband wasn't better protected from the deadly dust. Sylvia Hall, 72, from Coventry lost husband Frank on February 7 this year, just four months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer on the lining of the lungs caused by inhaling asbestos dust. Frank, who was 75 when he died, worked as a carpenter for a number of businesses and ogranisations. Sylvia instructed expert asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate the safety measures in place at each company to see how Frank came into contact with asbestos. Now Sylvia is calling on former colleagues to come forward to help with the investigation. She said: "Frank's death has left a huge void in our lives. He will be missed dearly by all those who knew him. "His illness took him very quickly and he suffered a great deal of pain and anguish. Despite his condition, Frank battled bravely and with great courage until the very end. "Now I just want to know how Frank was able to get mesothelioma. Why wasn't he better protected? "Nothing can turn back the clock of course, but it is important for my family and I to have these answers and to hold these organisations to account if they did not uphold their responsibilities to their workforce." Hayley Hill, an expert asbestos related disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing Frank's family, said: "Mesothelioma is an asbestos-related disease for which there is sadly no cure. "Companies have been well aware of the risks associated with exposing staff to asbestos since before the 1950s so there is no excuse for workers not to have been properly protected. "Any former colleagues should get in touch as any information, no matter how small, could help us with our investigation and give Frank's family the answers they deserve." Anyone with information can contact Hayley Hill at Irwin Mitchell on 0121 214 5407 or by email at hayley.hill@irwinmitchell.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minnesota Couple Sues Crown, Cork, et al. ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a Minnesota couple alleges the husband has been injured because of asbestos exposure. John Skeate and Florence Skeate filed a complaint on Nov. 30 in Madison County Circuit Court against Crown, Cork & Seal USA Inc., John Crane Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. alleging negligence. According to the complaint, John Skeate worked for various power houses and was exposed to and ingested large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from products manufactured by defendants. On Aug. 24, the suit states he first became aware that he had developed non-malignant bilateral pleural plaques, an asbestos-related disease. Plaintiff Florence Skeate alleges she has been deprived of the companionship, services and society of her husband. The plaintiffs hold Crown, Cork & Seal USA Inc., John Crane Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. responsible because the defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes were readily available and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions on how to avoid inhaling asbestos fibers. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in favor of each plaintiff in an amount of more than $50,000. They are represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle, Stephen B. Wohlford, Matthew C. Morris, J. Joseph Kusmierczak, et al. of SWMK Law LLC in St. Louis, Missouri. Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-1641 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bronchoalveolar Lavage Accurate for Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- Ines Martins, writing for Mesothelioma Research News, reported that bronchoalveolar lavage may be a promising way of confirming asbestos exposure, allowing clinicians to identify people at risk of developing mesothelioma. The study, "Utility of Bronchoalveolar Lavage for the Diagnosis of Asbestos-Related Diseases," conduced by a Spanish research team, was published in the journal Archivos de Bronconeumolog¡a. Bronchoalveolar lavage, an easily performed and well-tolerated procedure, consists of irrigating a patient's bronchi with a saline solution to detect cellular (mostly immune cell) and acellular changes in the lungs, helping doctors to diagnosis and manage certain diseases. The method had already been proposed as an objective way of detecting asbestos exposure. Maria Jesus Cruz, with University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, and colleagues assessed its performance and diagnostic reliability for asbestos-related diseases. They collected bronchoalveolar lavage samples from 72 patients undergoing bronchoscopy, mostly men who were on average 66 years old. Lung tissue from 23 of these patients was also analyzed. The accepted threshold value for diagnosing asbestos-related diseases is one asbestos body per milliliter of fluid or, in the case of lung samples, 1000 asbestos bodies per gram of dry tissue. Analyzing patients' history and medical records, the researchers identified 39 people who had been exposed to the carcinogen. However, only 33 percent of these patients exhibited asbestos bodies above the threshold value. In addition, among the 33 patients with no history of asbestos exposure, five had asbestos bodies above threshold values. Nonetheless, the team reports a significant difference in the levels of asbestos bodies in exposed and non-exposed patients. The researchers found that the best threshold value to detect asbestos exposure is half the previously established value -- 0.5 asbestos bodies per milliliter of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid -- which showed a sensitivity of 46 percent and a specificity of 83 percent. This means that this threshold value can identify 46 out of 100 patients with asbestos exposure, and 83 out of 100 patients who were never exposed to the carcinogen. Together, the results suggest that bronchoalveolar lavage is an objective measure of exposure to asbestos. Given that correlation between asbestos bodies in both the brochoalveolar fluid and the lungs is good, the researchers believe that both techniques can be used to analyze a person's exposure and disease risk. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sinclair Pays EPA $65K for Asbestos Cleanup ------------------------------------------------------------ Christine Peterson, writing for Casper Star Tribune, reported that Sinclair Casper Refining Company recently paid the Environmental Protection Agency $655,000 to settle a decades-old cleanup in Thermopolis. The company agreed in September to pay for costs associated with reclaiming the site of the company's Thermopolis oil refinery, which operated from 1920 to 1969, according to a news release from the EPA. "Beginning in 1974, the refinery was razed and equipment was sold and removed from the site by various entities, including Sinclair's predecessor, Little America Refining Company," the news release stated. "During demolition activities, a significant amount of asbestos-contaminated pipe insulation was stripped from equipment and disposed at the site." When the EPA examined the site in 2011, officials found "significant asbestos contamination." The federal agency then removed about 4,000 cubic yards of material and soil containing asbestos. Clean, native soil was brought to fill excavated areas in November 2013, and the site was reseeded the following spring. The agreement is part of the federal Superfund program, which is dedicated to cleaning some of the country's most contaminated land. Other Superfund sites in Wyoming included the Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating site, which was removed from the list in 1999, F.E. Warren Airforce Base in Cheyenne and the 410-acre Mystery Bridge Road/U.S. Highway 20 site in Evansville. Exposure to asbestos has been linked to lung cancer and other lung diseases. ********* 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 * * *