/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 252 Headlines ACCURIDE CORP: 5 Class Suits Challenge Crestview Deal ACE WENTWORTH: "Huppe" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces UFCW Fund Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces St. Paul Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing ALBANY MOLECULAR: Settlement Reached in "Gauquie" Suit AMERICAN EQUITY: Cuts Litigation Liability by $6.4 Million AMERICARE CERTIFIED: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Suit Over BELVIQ Program AUTOZONE: Recent Class Action Similar to Frequent Flyer Suits BBX CAPITAL: Second Suit Challenging Merger With BFC Dismissed BBX CAPITAL: Wins Approval of $400K Settlement of Antitrust Suit B/E AEROSPACE: Faces "Klein" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Rockwell BIG CITY: Illegally Inflates Rents, "Maddicks" Suit Claims BIOLASE INC: Defends "Shulruff" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed Broadcom Merger BROTHERHOOD TRUCKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break CANADA: Sixties Scoop Lawyer Questions PM's Reconciliation Move CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defending Securities Suit in C.D. Calif. CBL & ASSOCIATES: New Mexico ERB Has 60 Days to File Complaint CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses Claims Over PMFG Acquisition CENTURY ALUMINUM: Has Reached Agreement to Settle Ravenswood Suit CHEF'D LLC: Faces "Sprosky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHINESE-AMERICAN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims CITIGROUP: High Court Won't Hear 401(k) Plan Participants' Appeal CITY OF MANSFIELD: Davis et al. Seek to Recoup Wages Under FLSA COMPREHENSIVE KIDS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims CTC GROUP: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CTI BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Washington CVS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Barchock" ERISA Suit CVS HEALTH: Must Defend Against Sheet Metal Workers' Suit CVS HEALTH: Caremark Suit Dismissed Following Settlement Approval CVS HEALTH: Certification of Customers Class Sought in Cal. Suit CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in PBM Antitrust MDL Remains Pending CVS HEALTH: Discovery Has Commenced in Class Suit vs. Omnicare DAIMLER: New Jersey Court Dismisses Emissions Class Action DARPAN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanscrainte" Suit Under FLSA DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Bench Trial in Do Not Call Suit Ends DITECH FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Circeo-Loudon" Case Approved DOCUMENT GROUP: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Faces "Cosio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Class Suit Remains Pending in California ENERGY TRANSFER: Dieckman's Appeal Remains Pending FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Against "Hendley" Suit in S.D.N.Y. FOX ORTEGA: Holds Auction as Part of Premier Cru Settlement GENESEE & WYOMING: Class Suits Over P&W Acquisition Pending GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in "Mulvaney" Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania GOLDEN KRUST: "Acevedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GOODRICH CORPORATION: Sued Over Bargaining Agreement Violation HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Redmon" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws HC2 HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by March 2017 HERTZ CORP: Awaits Decision in Parent's Securities Litigation HERTZ CORP: Awaits Ruling From Ninth Circuit in "Sobel" Suit HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits January 24 Trial in "Powell" Suit HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger Suits HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Unit Appeals Denial in Overdraft Suit IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Case IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Trial Yet in Digoxin and Doxycycline Suits IMPAX LABORATORIES: AWP Actions in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed INCONTACT INC: Reached MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in N.J. JAY PEAK: Class Action Attorneys Seek Brokerage Records J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification in Paldo Suit Pending J2 GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Early 2017 JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Pending K & R TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits vs. D&Os Filed KOREA TIMES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kim" Suit Claims KREATION ORGANIC: "Kaputsos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchasers Win Bid to Sanction Objector LEGGETT & PLATT: Must Attend Mediation in Polyurethane Foam MDL LEPAGE BAKERIES: Reached $1.25MM Class Action Settlement LICE TROOPERS: Faces "Hidalgo" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT: Sued in Ill. Over Excessive Record Fees LIONS GATE: Court Won't Rush Proceedings in Starz Merger Suit LIONS GATE: Faces "Gross" Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado LIONS GATE: "Levy" Suit in New York Challenges Merger With Starz MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: New York Class Action at Preliminary Stage MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger Suits Settlement MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Lawyer Responds to Chemo Settlement Objections MDC PARTNERS: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir. MDC PARTNERS: "Paniccia" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada MDL 2371: Appeal in UMS Patent Litigation Pending MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal From Dismissal of LFR Suit Pending MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Defends Airbag Litigation NAT'L RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued over Reverse Mortgage Loan Policies NESTLE USA: "Ross" Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Meals NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Florida NEWELL BRANDS: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Hirsch" Class Suit NORTHERN OIL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed ORTHOTOUCH: Georgiou Accused of Hijacking Highveld Class Action PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action PMK*BNC: Faces "Vainer" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Interns PROGRESSIVE: Auto Body Shops' Class Action Can't Proceed PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Retirement Sys. Suit Remains Stayed PTT EXPLORATION: Indonesia Mulls Suit Over Montara Oil Spill RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Suit Continued RICO PAN: "De Leon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA RIO TINTO: Weiner Trust Files Suit Over "Misleading" Reports SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Remand Two Class Actions SID'S SEALANTS: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA SIRIUS XM: Settlement May Solidify Position in Digital Music SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Considers All Natural Litigation to Be Closed SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Class Suit by IBOs in Tennessee SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Two Suits Over Diamond Foods Deal SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Settles "Sparks" Suit for $700,000 SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice Term Pending SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Rest Break SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Bush Fire Survivors Set to Get Payouts STARWOOD HOTELS: Seeks More Time to Reply to "Dugas" Amended Suit STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Case Underway SUNSHINE LANDSCAPERS: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT TAMPA ELECTRIC: Appeal by Insurers in Suit vs. NMGC Dismissed TAMPA ELECTRIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Medicaid Program Certification TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Alleges Conspiracy Over Pravastatin TRACFONE WIRELESS: City of Pickering to Take Part in Class Action TRUEBLUE INC: Settles Class Action for $5MM, Feb. 6 Hearing Set TUBEMOGUL: Faces "Theil" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Sale to Adobe TUBEMOGUL INC: Faces "Yavuz" Sued Over Proposed Sale to Adobe TYAN INC: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements UBS SECURITIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Incentive Pay UNITED DEV'T: Judge Sends Class Action Back to Chancery Court VAALCO ENERGY: Wins Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Butcher" Suit VALHI INC: Suits Arising From Use of Lead Pigments Remain Pending VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Question AG's Role in Asphalt Class Action WALTER INVESTMENT: $24 Million Settlement Has Final Approval WATTS WATER: Still Awaits OK of $14-Mil. Deal in Connector Suits WELLS FARGO: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, "Wang" Suit Says WIND RIVER: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Securities Action Still Pending YAHOO! INC: UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action Still Pending YAHOO! INC: Faces "Stras" in N.D. Cal. Suit Over Data Breach ********* ACCURIDE CORP: 5 Class Suits Challenge Crestview Deal ----------------------------------------------------- Accuride Corporation is facing five class action lawsuits in federal and state courts in Indiana challenging a proposed merger deal with Crestview Partners, according to its November 8, 2016, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 2, 2016, by and among the Company, Armor Parent Corp. and Armor Merger Sub Corp., provides for the merger of Armor Merger Sub Corp. with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Armor Parent Corp. Among other things, the Company supplemented the disclosure under the heading "Background of the Merger" by stating that on June 13, 2016, the Board authorized the formation of an "ad hoc" transaction committee of the Board (the "Ad Hoc Transaction Committee") for administrative convenience and efficiency in light of the expectation that the significant level of activity following the submission of Crestview's indication of interest would increase after the approval of the exclusivity agreement with Crestview. Messrs. Risner, Davis and Adams were appointed to the Ad Hoc Transaction Committee due to, among other things, their knowledge of Accuride as a result of their service as the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Compensation Committee and Chairman of the Audit Committee, respectively, and their extensive executive and financial leadership experience. A copy of the supplemental information is available at https://is.gd/9Z3jU8 As previously disclosed on the definitive proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on October 17, 2016, in connection with the proposed transaction and on the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 1, 2016, five putative class action complaints have been filed in connection with the proposed transaction. Three of these complaints were filed in state courts in the State of Indiana, County of Vanderburgh: (i) Alexander v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on September 14, 2016 in Vanderburgh Superior Court; (ii) Raul v. Adams, et al., filed on September 20, 2016 in Vanderburgh Circuit Court; and (iii) Rosenfeld v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 18, 2016 in Vanderburgh Superior Court (collectively, the "State Actions"). Two of these complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana: (i) Jones v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 20, 2016 and (ii) Suokko v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 24, 2016 (together, the "Federal Actions" and together with the State Actions, the "Actions"). The Actions allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration and failing to disclose purportedly material information to stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction, that certain provisions in the Merger Agreement relating to the proposed transaction unfairly deter a potential alternative transaction and that the Company and its board of directors violated various federal securities laws in failing to disclose purportedly material information to stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction. The Company says the defendants named in the Actions deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the Actions and specifically deny that any breach of fiduciary duty occurred, or that any further disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. Nonetheless, the Company has determined to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement with the disclosures set forth below. In making these supplemental disclosures, the Company and its board of directors do not in any way admit the factual or legal allegations in the Actions and further reserve all of their rights and defenses with respect thereto. * * * Accuride on Nov. 18 announced the completion of its acquisition by funds managed by Crestview Partners, a New York based private equity firm, pursuant to the merger agreement it announced on Sept. 2. Accuride's shareholders adopted the merger agreement at the Company's Special Meeting of Shareholders held on Nov. 15. ACE WENTWORTH: "Huppe" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE HUPPE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACE WENTWORTH, INC., d/b/a WENTWORTH GOLF CLUB, and WILLIAM PLACE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:16- cv-03381-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate multiple golf clubs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces UFCW Fund Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Perrigo New York Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-09431 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise the prices of and allocate markets and customers for desonide topical cream and ointment products. Desonide is a commonly prescribed medication used to treat skin conditions such as dermatitis and eczema. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling branded and generic pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Rudi Julius, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com rjulius@labaton.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces St. Paul Suit Over Desonide-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Novartis International AG, Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo New York, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-09530 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise the prices of and allocate markets and customers for desonide topical cream and ointment products. Desonide is a commonly prescribed medication used to treat skin conditions such as dermatitis and eczema. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling branded and generic pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Deborah A. Elman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com delman@gelaw.com - and - Renae D. Steiner, Esq. David Woodward, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com vesades@heinsmills.com dwoodward@heinsmills.com ALBANY MOLECULAR: Settlement Reached in "Gauquie" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the case, Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-06637 (E.D.N.Y.) have reached a proposed settlement and on Dec. 16, Judge Frederic Block held that based upon Plaintiff's letter application filed that day, the Court will refrain from ruling on defendant's pending motion for reconsideration. The Court held that by February 10, 2017 the parties shall file either their stipulation of settlement or a status report letter as to their settlement. Any application with respect to their discovery schedule or the January 12, 2017 conference should be addressed to MJ Gold. Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that on November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-6637, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. An amended complaint was filed on March 31, 2015. The amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's alleged failure to disclose in its August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial results for the second quarter of 2014 that one of the manufacturing facilities experienced a power interruption in July 2014. The amended complaint alleges that the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants submitted on July 29, 2015 a motion to dismiss lead plaintiffs' amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs submitted an opposition on October 7, 2015, and defendants submitted a reply on November 20, 2015. On July 26, 2016, the court denied the defendants motion to dismiss. The Company filed a motion to reconsider its July 29, 2015 motion to dismiss lead plaintiff's amended complaint. Albany Molecular Research, Inc. is a global contract research and manufacturing organization providing customers fully integrated drug discovery, development, and manufacturing services. AMERICAN EQUITY: Cuts Litigation Liability by $6.4 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that during the three months ended September 30, 2016, the Company reduced the litigation liability related to the case, American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, by $6.4 million. The Company said, "Companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and similar claims. We were a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims." "The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by us. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for settlement purposes only. A class member filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 28, 2014. On February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the terms of the settlement agreement and on April 6, 2016, the class member's subsequent request for a rehearing en banc was denied. All remaining opportunities for appeal have passed. "During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we reduced the litigation liability related to the Los Angeles Case by $6.4 million as we paid out $1.8 million in partial settlement, reclassified $1.8 million from the litigation liability to policy benefit reserves and other policy funds and contract claims and released $2.8 million of the litigation liability as additional information became available concerning the nature and magnitude of claims based on the terms of the settlement. After this activity, we estimate our litigation liability in this matter to be $4.7 million based on our best estimate of probable loss. There can be no assurance that any other pending or future litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. "In addition to our commitments to fund mortgage loans, we have unfunded commitments at September 30, 2016 to limited partnerships of $58.8 million and to secured bank loans of $35.3 million." American Equity specializes in the sale of individual annuities (primarily deferred annuities) and, to a lesser extent, it also sells life insurance policies. AMERICARE CERTIFIED: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Khalima Nix Dekhkanova, Klara Barnard, Navruza Z. Khalilova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americare Certified Special Services Inc., and Americare, Inc., Case No. 522052/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a work week. The Defendants own and operate a company that provides home care services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 Facsimile: (866) 261-5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Suit Over BELVIQ Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a class action related to its BELVIQ program. The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. "On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. "On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. "On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. "A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court's dismissal of the second consolidated amended complaint and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. "Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims." AUTOZONE: Recent Class Action Similar to Frequent Flyer Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Minnesota attorney from Kennedy & Kennedy law firm says a recent lawsuit filed against AutoZone over its customer loyalty reward program is similar to those that were filed against airlines in frequent flyer miles disputes. Mary Ruth Hughes and Kevin Shenkman filed the class action complaint in Superior Court of the State of California against AutoZone, alleging breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The defendant subsequently removed the lawsuit to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 27. The complaint stated that Ms. Hughes and Mr. Shenkman suffered monetary damages as a result of AutoZone's allegedly misleading rewards program. The plaintiffs said AutoZone changed expiration dates of credits built up by their customers. Chris Kennedy, managing partner at Kennedy & Kennedy, often speaks on legal matters with the media in Minnesota. He spoke on the strength of the case in the class action suit brought forth by the plaintiffs in California. "Negligent misrepresentation is the strongest allegation of the three," Mr. Kennedy said. "The defendant likely never fully explained that the program could go away or be limited in certain instances or it made it difficult for the consumer to know. Like with frequent flyer programs, people didn't realize there were blackout dates. "Large companies are usually good at putting out disclaimers, just not always in a manner that anybody looks at." Why would a company change its expiration dates on credits for rewards? Mr. Kennedy had a simple answer. "Profit," Mr. Kennedy said. "If by changing the dates, they may reduce liabilities, or in some way they can increase what is in their balance sheets, then there is a motive to do it." Mr. Kennedy continued to compare the suit to frequent flyer mile program lawsuits against the airlines in recent decades. He also mentioned how other types of promotions from companies have led to class action suits under similar pretenses. "There were several regarding frequent flyer mile programs," Mr. Kennedy said. "In the past four or five years, there have been lawsuits brought forth regarding gift cards." Hughes and Shenkman sought trial by jury, compensatory and general damages, interest, an order for the defendant to make a payment to a cy pres fund, court costs and any further relief the court grants. They are represented by attorneys Todd W. Bonder and Ryan M. Lapine -- rlapine@rmslaw.com -- of Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman LLP in Beverly Hills, California, and by Seth Yohalem of Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP in Chicago. BBX CAPITAL: Second Suit Challenging Merger With BFC Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- BBX Capital 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 a second lawsuit challenging its merger with BFC Financial Corporation was dismissed with prejudice. BBX Capital entered into a definitive merger agreement with BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Subsidiary LLC, a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of BFC ("Merger Sub") on July 27, 2016 and amended on October 20, 2016. The Merger Agreement provides for BBX Capital Corporation to merge with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company of the Merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of BFC. On August 10, 2016, Shiva Stein filed a lawsuit against BFC, Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's board of directors, which seeks to establish a class of BBX Capital's shareholders and challenges the currently proposed Merger pursuant to which BBX Capital would merge with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of BFC. This action, styled Shiva Stein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BBX Capital Corp., John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Willis N. Holcombe, Jarett S. Levan, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C. Winningham, II, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Subsidiary LLC, Case No. CACE16014713, was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The plaintiff asserts that the proposed Merger consideration undervalues BBX Capital and is unfair to BBX Capital's public shareholders, that the sales process was unfair and that BBX Capital's directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor owed to the public shareholders of BBX Capital because, among other reasons, they failed to take steps to maximize the value of BBX Capital to its public shareholders and instead diverted consideration to themselves. The lawsuit also alleges that BFC, as the controlling shareholder of BBX Capital, breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor owed to the public shareholders of BBX Capital by utilizing confidential, non-public information to formulate the Merger consideration and not acting in the best interests of BBX Capital's public shareholders. In addition, the lawsuit includes a cause of action against BBX Capital, BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit requests that the court grant an injunction blocking the proposed Merger or, if the proposed Merger is completed, rescind the transaction or award damages as determined by the court. BFC and BBX Capital believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. A second lawsuit which sought to challenge the merger and included many of the same claims as set forth in the Stein action was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida during September 2016. This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice during October 2016. BBX Capital and BFC have also received threats of additional litigation relating to the proposed Merger. BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based company involved in the acquisition, development, ownership and management of and investments in real estate and real estate development projects as well as operating businesses. Prior to the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T Corporation on July 31, 2012, BBX Capital Corporation was a bank holding company and its principal asset was the ownership of BankAtlantic. The principal assets of BBX Capital currently consist of its 46% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, investments in real estate joint ventures and operating businesses, and legacy loans and real estate assets transferred to BBX Capital in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic. BBX CAPITAL: Wins Approval of $400K Settlement of Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court approved BBX Capital Corporation's $400,000 settlement of an antitrust class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey, 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 December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants. The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%." Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main antitrust claim. BBX Capital reached an agreement to settle the action for $400,000 and the court approved the settlement in September 2016. BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based company involved in the acquisition, development, ownership and management of and investments in real estate and real estate development projects as well as operating businesses. Prior to the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T Corporation on July 31, 2012, BBX Capital Corporation was a bank holding company and its principal asset was the ownership of BankAtlantic. The principal assets of BBX Capital currently consist of its 46% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, investments in real estate joint ventures and operating businesses, and legacy loans and real estate assets transferred to BBX Capital in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic. B/E AEROSPACE: Faces "Klein" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Rockwell --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Amin J. Khoury, James F. Albaugh, David J. Anderson, Richard G. Hamermesh, Werner Lieberherr, Jonathan M. Schofield, Mary M. Vandeweghe, and John T. Whates, Case No. 12969 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public minority stockholders of B/E Aerospace, Inc. who have been harmed as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty by the B/E Aerospace Board of Directors in approving the sale of the Company to Rockwell Collins, Inc., for $34.10 per share in cash and $27.90 in shares of Rockwell Collins common stock, subject to a 7.5% collar. B/E Aerospace, Inc. is a manufacturer of aircraft cabin interior products. Rockwell Collins, Inc. provides avionics and information technology systems and services to governmental agencies and aircraft manufacturers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com BIG CITY: Illegally Inflates Rents, "Maddicks" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Maddicks, John Ambrosio, Paul Wilder, Samuel Wilder, Alyssa O'Connell, Johanna S. Karlin, Brian Wagner, Tyler Strickland, Daniel Robles, Elena Ricardo, Liam Cudmore, Jennifer Mak, Joshua Berg, Anish Jain, John Curtin, Jonathan Fieweger, Maria Funcheon, Jordani Sanchez, Melissa Mickens, M.D. Ivey, Devin Elting, Semi Pak, Kaitlin Campbell, Sarah Norris, Mikiala Jamison, Sheresa Jenkins-Risteki, Yanira Gomez, and Kristen Piro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big City Properties, LLC, and Big City Realty Management, LLC, Case No. 656345/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged scheme designed to inflate rents over and above the amounts which they are legally permitted to charge. The Defendants own and operate more than 20 apartment buildings, primarily in Harlem. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. Jarred I. Kassenoff, Esq. Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com jkassenoff@nfllp.com rsachar@nfllp.com BIOLASE INC: Defends "Shulruff" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- BIOLASE, Inc., is defending itself against a putative class action lawsuit commenced by Dr. Charles Shulruff in Illinois, 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 February 24, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other related Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff. The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class of comprised of other dentists who received the same or similar faxes from BIOLASE. BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14, 2016 and denied liability on all claims. BIOLASE also denies that class certification is appropriate. The Company says the case is in the early stages of discovery and no substantive motion practice has been conducted by either side at this time. BIOLASE, Inc., is a medical device company that develops, manufactures, markets, and sells laser systems in dentistry and medicine and also markets, sells, and distributes dental imaging equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra- oral scanners, in-office, and chair-side milling machines. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed Broadcom Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Judy Bruner, Lloyd A. Carney, Renato A. Dipentima, Alan L. Earhart , John W. Gerdelman, Kim C. Goodman, David L. House, L. William Krause, David E. Roberson, Sanjay Vaswani, Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 3:16- cv-07081-EMC (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of all Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., shareholders to enjoin the proposed agreement and plan of merger of the Company with Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. is a supplier of networking hardware, software, and services, including Storage Area Networking solutions and Internet Protocol Networking solutions, for businesses and organizations of various types and sizes. Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Corporation operate a fabless semiconductor company that makes products for the wireless and broadband communication industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com BROTHERHOOD TRUCKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break ------------------------------------------------------------- All Well Benson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees v. Brotherhood Trucking, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. BC42865 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest period in violation of the California Labor Code. Brotherhood Trucking, Inc. owns and operates a company that transports containers in southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com CANADA: Sixties Scoop Lawyer Questions PM's Reconciliation Move --------------------------------------------------------------- Jody Porter, writing for CBC News, reports that the Prime Minister's commitment to reconciliation is put in question by Canada's choice of lawyers for the Sixties Scoop class action, according to a former band councillor from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (K.I.) in northern Ontario. John Cutfeet was among the leaders from his First Nation who were embroiled in a mining dispute back in 2008. That's when Owen Young, then a prosecutor for Ontario, encouraged the judge to impose "a financial penalty that hurts" on the community to avoid leaders becoming martyrs by going to jail for their cause. Now, Mr. Young is the lawyer defending Canada in a class action suit on the Sixties Scoop. The wounds from Mr. Young's arguments in court in 2008 are still fresh in Mr. Cutfeet's mind. "He was trying to promote the agenda that Indigenous rights did not exist," Mr. Cutfeet said. Six K.I. leaders did serve time in jail for their resistance to mineral exploration on their traditional lands. Now, Mr. Cutfeet is questioning Canada's use of Young in the Sixties Scoop litigation. "It certainly doesn't contribute to a good relationship or a new relationship with our people when you have [lawyers] out there thinking back to old colonial thinking," he said. Mr. Young argued in court that the concept of Indigenous culture is too nebulous to require a legal obligation on Canada to protect it when Indigenous children were apprehended and placed with non- Indigenous families. "You begin to see what [Trudeau's] 'sunny ways' really mean when you have someone who totally wants to disregard Aboriginal culture, representing the government, especially against children, children who were stolen from their families," Mr. Cutfeet said of Young's remarks. Mr. Cutfeet said he understands the adversarial role that lawyers are put in through the court system and said that means the Liberal's must re-think both their choice of lawyers and which cases to fight, if they're honest in their desire for reconciliation. "There was a lot of hope generated by [Trudeau saying] 'sunny ways, my friends', but these sort of actions point to the darker era that we've just come through," he said. CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defending Securities Suit in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the consolidated amended complaint in the federal securities class action. Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the "Grooms Complaint"). The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013 and November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the Company. The Kinney Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting. The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff. On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed in the consolidated action. The putative class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 17, 2016. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed July 29, 2016, and Defendants' reply was filed September 23, 2016. The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30, 2016 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings. Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets and services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration (combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat and power ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, critical power supply, transportation and marine. In addition, the Company's microturbines can be used as battery charging generators for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company was organized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbine generators commercially since 1998. CBL & ASSOCIATES: New Mexico ERB Has 60 Days to File Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, 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 Lead Plaintiff New Mexico Educational Retirement Board has 60 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. On May 27, 2016, Tommy French filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself and all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016. Two additional suits were filed shortly thereafter with similar allegations. On June 9, 2016, The Allan J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust filed a putative class action in the same Court on behalf of the trust and all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016, and on June 24, 2016, International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension Plan filed another putative class action in the same Court on behalf of itself and all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between August 9, 2011 and May 24, 2016, containing similar allegations. On July 26, 2016, motions were submitted to the Court for the consolidation of these three cases, as well as for the appointment of a lead plaintiff. On September 26, 2016, the Court granted the motion, consolidated the cases into one action, and appointed the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board as lead plaintiff and its counsel, Bernstein Liebhard, as lead counsel. The Court granted the lead plaintiff 60 days to file a consolidated amended complaint, and once filed, the Company will file a response. The previously filed complaints are all based on substantially similar allegations that certain of the Company's financing arrangements were obtained through fraud and/or misrepresentation, and that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made materially misleading statements to the market by failing to disclose material information concerning these alleged misrepresentations, and concerning the supposed involvement by insiders of the Company in alleged trading in the Company's stock by a United States senator on the basis of material nonpublic information. Based on these allegations, these complaints assert claims for violation of the securities laws and seek a variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes these complaints are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., is a real estate investment trust ("REIT") whose stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Company is the 100% owner of two qualified REIT subsidiaries, CBL Holdings I, Inc. and CBL Holdings II, Inc. At September 30, 2016, CBL Holdings I, Inc., the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, owned a 1.0% general partner interest in the Operating Partnership and CBL Holdings II, Inc. owned an 84.8% limited partner interest for a combined interest held by the Company of 85.8%. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses Claims Over PMFG Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- A court has dismissed the Plaintiffs' acquisition-related claims with prejudice, according to CECO Environmental Corp.'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, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of 100% of PMFG, Inc.'s outstanding common stock for a purchase price of $136.7 million. Since the public announcement of the proposed merger on May 4, 2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of the PMFG board of directors have been named as defendants in three lawsuits related to the acquisition, which were filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the merger failed to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the related merger agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II. In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a) that the PMFG board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the merger with deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG board of directors and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects. In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed- upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the merger agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as other equitable relief as the courts deem proper. Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non- jury trial on August 15, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and setting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would consider whether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposed settlement. On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew from the settlement and filed a notice of dismissal of their claims with prejudice. On September 2, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' request and dismissed their claims with prejudice. The Court retained jurisdiction to consider any applications for "mootness" based attorneys' fees and expenses from plaintiffs and/or the counsel for the objector. Briefing on the attorneys' fees request is ongoing. CECO Environmental Corp. is a diversified global provider of leading engineered technologies to the environmental, energy, and fluid handling and filtration industrial segments, targeting specific niche-focused end markets through an attractive asset- light business model. The Company provides a wide spectrum of products and services including dampers & diverters, cyclonic technology, thermal oxidizers, separation and filtration systems, selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction systems, scrubbers, dampers and silencers, exhaust systems, fluid handling equipment and plant engineered services and engineered design build fabrication. CENTURY ALUMINUM: Has Reached Agreement to Settle Ravenswood Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Century Aluminum 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 it has reached a tentative agreement to settle the actions related to the Ravenswood retiree medical benefits. In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"), the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later in November 2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing. The Company says, "As of the date of this filing, we believe we have reached a tentative agreement to settle these actions, subject to entering into a definitive written settlement agreement among the parties and obtaining court approval after notice to the class." "For the quarter ended September 30, 2016, we recognized a $23,000[,000] liability in the consolidated balance sheets with a corresponding expense included in Ravenswood charges in the consolidated statements of operations associated with this settlement. The tentative agreement currently anticipates that a $5,000[,000] payment would be made upon the court's final approval of the settlement agreement and $2,000[,000] annually thereafter for nine years." Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminum with aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the United States and Iceland. CHEF'D LLC: Faces "Sprosky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Trysha Marie Sprosky, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. Chef'D, LLC and Does 1-10, Case No. BC643644 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Chef'D, LLC owns and operates a meal delivery store in El Segundo, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805)212-5124 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com CHINESE-AMERICAN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Dekin Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., and Chinese-American Planning Council, Inc., Case No. 656348/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a work week. The Defendants provide home health care to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 Facsimile: (866) 261-5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com CITIGROUP: High Court Won't Hear 401(k) Plan Participants' Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by participants in two Citigroup Inc. 401(k) plans that plan executives breached their fiduciary duties by failing to place limits on investments in a company stock fund during the financial crisis of 2008. The Supreme Court, without comment, posted its decision on Dec. 5. Attorneys for the participants, in the case of Muehlgay et al. vs. Citigroup Inc. et al., filed a petition with the court in August seeking a hearing. The participants were appealing a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May, which supported previous decisions by a U.S. District Court in New York to dismiss the complaints. In May 2015 and again in July 2015, District Court Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed complaints by participants in a class-action suit, who alleged plan executives and corporate executives violated their fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs had argued that Citigroup's involvement in the subprime mortgage market caused "significant losses and insufficient capital to absorb those losses," according to court documents. They alleged that such actions subsequently harmed Citigroup's stock price. They said that by January 2008 -- the start of the class-action claim period -- the defendants "should have been aware" through public and internal "warning flags" that Citigroup stock was an "imprudent" investment for 401(k) plan participants, according to court documents. The District Court judge dismissed the complaints because the suit was filed after the ERISA statute of limitations. The judge also ruled that the participants' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were "without merit" because they "failed to show any special circumstances that would have made it imprudent" for defendants to allow participants to continue investing in Citigroup stock. CITY OF MANSFIELD: Davis et al. Seek to Recoup Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Davis, Thayne Telquist, Joshua Frech, Joseph Gladden, Freeman Nixon, Justin Cikity, Travis Stantz, Heath Underwood, Heather Swinehart, Christopher Brunk, Michael Haines, Paul Webb, Ronald Barnes, Charles Hamilton, Jack Shay, Shermon Bond, Nolan Goodman, Paul Garneret, Marijan E. Grogoza, John Meyer, Ronald Packer, James Reed, Philip Messer c/o Michael Piotrowski, Esq., 2721 Manchester Road, Akron OH 44319, Plaintiffs, v. City of Mansfield, Ohio c/o Timothy Theaker, Mayor 30 North Diamond Street Mansfield OH 44902 and Lori A. Cope, in her official capacity as Safety-Service Director c/o City of Mansfield 30 North Diamond Street Mansfield OH 44902, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02974 (N.D. Ohio, December 12, 2016), was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to require Defendants to pay back wages allegedly owed to Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant City of Mansfield is a municipal corporation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Piotrowski, Esq. 2721 Manchester Road Akron OH 44319 Phone: (330) 753-7080 Fax: (330) 753-8955 E-mail: ohiofoplawyer@me.com - and - Gwen Callender, Esq. 222 East Town Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-5700 Fax: (614) 224-5775 E-mail: gcallender@fopohio.org COMPREHENSIVE KIDS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Roxanne Knights, Lindsay Reiss and Katherine Zapatier, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Comprehensive Kids Developmental School and Nathan Sklar, Case No. 160293/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees at their straight or agreed upon rate for all wages due. Comprehensive Kids Developmental School operates a school located at 383 Grand Street, New York, New York 10002. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625-0105 CTC GROUP: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rodrigo Aguilar, Maria Ibarra, and Guadalupe Perez, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. CTC Group d/b/a Doubletree By Hilton Torrance, Recana LLC, Rare Staffing Corporation, Rosalva Lopez, Francisco Franco, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC643304 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. CTC Group operates Doubletree By Hilton Torrance hotel located at 21333 Hawthorne Blvd, Torrance, CA 90503, USA. Recana LLC is a provider of outsourced professional resources. Rare Staffing Corporation owns and operates a staffing agency in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 601-3131 Facsimile: (310)388-8444 E-mail: Daniel@slfla.com CTI BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- CTI BioPharma Corp. continues to defend a consolidated securities litigation pending in Washington, 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 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16- 216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to its September 24, 2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired the Company's stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers for violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court on May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016, the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL. On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated class action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants' motion to dismiss, with briefing concluding Feb. 22, 2016. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time and, as such, the Company has not recorded an accrual for any possible loss. CTI BioPharma Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer a unique benefit to patients and health care providers. CVS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Barchock" ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit filed by Mary Barchock, et al., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 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 February 2016, an ERISA class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard Capital Management, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the "Plan"), and participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund in short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. The Company has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company. The Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, and mail order. The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM), CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R), Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R) Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names. CVS HEALTH: Must Defend Against Sheet Metal Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund; and Indiana Carpenters Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, C.A. No. 16-046 S (D. R.I.), Chief District Judge denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Certify Question to the Indiana Supreme Court. Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to both motions and Defendant filed Replies. Judge Smith said denial of CVS's Motion to Dismiss is without prejudice to CVS raising its arguments concerning claims under state laws other than Indiana at the class certification stage. A copy of the Court's Nov. 1 decision is available at https://is.gd/WBHBYB from Leagle.com. CVS Health 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 February 2016, two third-party payors filed a similar putative class action, Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp., against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The Company's motion to dismiss the suit has been denied. In August 2016, a similar complaint was filed by another third- party payor, Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corp., also in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The Company likewise intends to defend this action. CVS Health filed its answer to this suit on Nov. 15. CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company. The Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, and mail order. The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM), CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R), Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R) Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names. CVS HEALTH: Caremark Suit Dismissed Following Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health 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 the Caremark class action lawsuit was dismissed following approval of a settlement. Caremark -- the term "Caremark" generally refer to any one or more pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable -- was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. The parties have entered into an agreement to resolve the matter. In connection with this agreement, the Company contributed a total of $80 million to the settlement fund and agreed to forego its right to have its insurer continue to reimburse its related legal fees. The Company had established reserves related to this matter to fully cover such payments and the payment was made in the three months ended September 30, 2016. In August 2016, the court entered final judgment dismissing the matter and approving the settlement. The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation. CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company. The Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, and mail order. The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM), CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R), Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R) Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names. CVS HEALTH: Certification of Customers Class Sought in Cal. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs of a consolidated lawsuit pending in California move for the certification of a class involving CVS Health Corporation customers from 11 states, 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 July and September 2015, two related putative class actions, Corcoran, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., and Podgorny, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., were filed against the Company in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois, respectively. The two cases have been consolidated in United States District Court in the Northern District of California. In March 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's first motion to dismiss. In July 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's partial motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. Discovery is proceeding on the remaining allegations in the third amended complaint, which alleges that the plaintiffs overpaid for prescriptions for generic drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states and in October 2016 Plaintiffs moved for the certification of a class involving CVS customers from 11 states. CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company. The Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, and mail order. The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM), CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R), Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R) Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names. CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in PBM Antitrust MDL Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- North Jackson Pharmacy Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation remains pending, CVS Health 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. Beginning in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed by pharmacies alleging that various PBMs were violating certain antitrust laws. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. One complaint named three Caremark entities as defendants, and the other two complaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case against the third Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and that entity. The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request and later closed by the American Arbitration Association. In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases, including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originally filed in that court. The consolidated action is now known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. A motion for class certification filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the Caremark defendants in August 2015 is currently pending. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company. The Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, and mail order. The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM), CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R), Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R) Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names. CVS HEALTH: Discovery Has Commenced in Class Suit vs. Omnicare -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has commenced in the consolidated class action lawsuit arising from the 2005 public offering of CVS Health Corporation's subsidiary, 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 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. The consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public offering in December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. In October 2016, Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint, and discovery commenced. CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy innovation company. The Company's Pharmacy Services Segment provides a full range of pharmacy benefit management services, including plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, and mail order. The Pharmacy Services Segment operates under the CVS Caremark(TM) Pharmacy Services, Caremark(R), CVS Caremark(TM), CarePlus CVS Pharmacy(R), CVS Specialty(TM), RxAmerica(R), Accordant(R), SilverScript(R), NovoLogix(R), Coram(R), Navarro(R) Health Services and Advanced Care Scripts(TM) names. DAIMLER: New Jersey Court Dismisses Emissions Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert Kreijger, writing for Handelsblatt, reports that the battle may not be over, but Mercedes-maker Daimler booked an initial victory on Dec. 6 against customers suing the German luxury carmaker over diesel emissions. A New Jersey court dismissed accusation that Daimler had manipulated emissions values and issued misleading advertising, news agencies Reuters and DPA reported. The court, however, said the plaintiffs could amend the class action suit and re-file it at a later date. U.S. law firm Hagens Berman, which filed the suit in February, told DPA it would do so. Daimler said earlier this year the class actions "are considered to be without merit." Lawyers and car owners filed several lawsuits against the German company after its peer Volkswagen admitted last year it had rigged 11 million diesel cars, which emit higher values of toxic nitrogen oxide than U.S. laws allow. DARPAN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanscrainte" Suit Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW SANSCRAINTE, 6060 Maidstone Ct., Westerville OH, 43082, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DARPAN MANAGEMENT, INC., c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 and PRAKASH PATEL c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 and VIBHAKAR SHAH c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 and DARSHAN SHAH c/o Sanjay K. Bhatt 300 South Second St., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01165-EAS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, December 12, 2016), challenges Defendants' employee compensation practices as willfully attempting to circumvent the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are engaged in the hospitality business and in the performance of related types of activities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 440-498-9100 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. MCDERMOTT LAW LLC 11925 Pearl Road, Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Phone: 216-367-9181 Fax: 440-846-1625 E-mail: kevin@mcdermottattorney.com DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Bench Trial in Do Not Call Suit Ends --------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the second phase of the bench trial in the Do Not Call Litigation commenced on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016. The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third- party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations." "On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs were also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. "On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties' summary judgment motions. The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs' motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial. "In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. The plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief. Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until: (i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting organization to perform a review of its call center operations; (ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C. implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing calls. The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure compliance with the TSR. "The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may not be imposed. "On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request for injunctive relief, and are now seeking, among other things, to enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some or all existing independent third-party retailers. The second phase of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the state plaintiffs' claims. "We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the case described above are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Trial in that action is scheduled to commence on January 9, 2017. "We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages." DISH Network Corporation is a holding company. Its subsidiaries operate two primary business segments -- Pay-TV and Broadband and Wireless. DITECH FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Circeo-Loudon" Case Approved ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the case, Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, has final approval. Ditech Financial had been subject to several putative class action lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions alleged that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly received benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form of commissions for work not performed, services provided at a reduced cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actual cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits asserted various theories of recovery and sought remedies including compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages, return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief. One such matter was Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16, 2014. A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in the Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015 and the settlement was approved by the court on August 30, 2016. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, all of the defendants collectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to pay damages to class members who timely file a claim, administrative costs to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2016. The settlement agreement also provides that Ditech Financial and its subsidiary, Green Tree Insurance Agency, Inc., and their affiliates will be released from certain claims and may no longer receive commissions on the placement of certain lender-placed insurance for a period of five years commencing January 27, 2017. This settlement resolves all lender-placed insurance class actions for the relevant period of the class, although the settlement does not apply to potential individual claims by class members who have opted out of the proposed settlement. Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the Company, is a mortgage banking firm focused primarily on servicing and originating residential loans, including reverse loans. DOCUMENT GROUP: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Vaughn, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. The Document Group, Case No. 4:16-cv-03578 (S.D. Tex., December 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, The Document Group provides printing and litigation support services to its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Faces "Cosio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel A. Cosio, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. d/b/a Sovereign Health of California, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC643461 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code. Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. operates four medical facilities in the State of California -- Los Angeles, Orange County, Palm Desert, and Rancho San Diego. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805)212-5124 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Class Suit Remains Pending in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit initiated by Michael Davis remains pending in California, Electronic Arts 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 July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the case is pending. Electronic Arts Inc. is a global leader in digital interactive entertainment. The Company develops, markets, publishes and distributes games, content and services that can be played by consumers on a variety of platforms, which include consoles (such as the PlayStation from Sony, and the Xbox from Microsoft), PCs, mobile phones and tablets. Some of the Company's games are based on its wholly-owned intellectual property (e.g., Battlefield, Mass Effect, Need for Speed, The Sims and Plants vs. Zombies), and some of the Company's games leverage content that it licensed from others (e.g., FIFA, Madden NFL and Star Wars). ENERGY TRANSFER: Dieckman's Appeal Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that one lawsuit related to the Regency merger litigation remains pending. Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency Merger, purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency Merger. All Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed, although one lawsuit remains pending on appeal. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on March 29, 2016, the Delaware court granted Defendants' motion and dismissed the lawsuit. On April 26, 2016, Dieckman filed his Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. This appeal is styled Adrian Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, et al., No. 208, 2016, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Dieckman filed his Opening Brief on June 9, 2016, and Defendants' filed their Answering Brief on July 29, 2016. On August 31, 2016, Dieckman filed his Reply Brief. Oral argument was scheduled for November 16, 2016 before the Delaware Supreme Court. FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Against "Hendley" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 8, 2016, that the Company is defending against a class action lawsuit by Chris B. Hendley. On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B. Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants"). On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants. Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest, and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert fees. The company and/or its respective subsidiaries are vigorously defending these lawsuits. Given the stage of the complaints and the claims and issues presented, the company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits. FOX ORTEGA: Holds Auction as Part of Premier Cru Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Audrey Mcnamara, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that Berkeley residents stepped into Premier Cru Fine Wines on Dec. 3 expecting to bid on wine left over after the store's owner, Fox Ortega Enterprises, filed for bankruptcy in January while being investigated by the FBI for an alleged ponzi scheme. Instead, items up for bidding included everything from tapestries to a George Foreman Grill -- the wine had already been sold for $3.6 million in September. The Dec. 3 auction was the outcome of a separate settlement between the court appointed trustee and the building's landlord, according to the company's attorney Mark Bostick. The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee appointed to the case, Michael Kasola, left all remaining abandoned property at the combined storefront and warehouse -- located on University Avenue -- for the landlord to sell independently as part of the settlement. The auction was held by Daniel Clar Auctioneers, a commercial liquidating business hired by the landlord, according to Bostick. "We've had a very good showing so far," said Daniel Clar Auctioneers owner Harvey Clar. Among the various items up for sale were empty bottles of wine previously used for display in the store's showroom. One of these bottles still containing their original wine would be worth hundreds to upwards of thousands of dollars, said Bay Area wine retailer David Netzer, who attended the auction. Mr. Netzer questioned the legality of auctioning off empty bottles of such expensive wine because of the high rate of fraud involving the sale of fine wine bottles filled with cheaper wines at the original label's price point. As part of the settlement reached in the Premier Cru class action lawsuit, the store's entire lot of retail wine was sold to the highest bidder, Spectrum Wine Auctions. According to court documents, the buyer paid $3,550,000 for the collection of primary bottles -- or those previously paid for by Premier Cru customers. Unfettered wine -- or bottles without associated sales -- were sold for a total of $126,000. Because of the amount of wine remaining at the store and warehouse, the case was time sensitive, according to Mr. Bostick. The sale of the wine was authorized by the U.S. bankruptcy court Aug. 30 and finalized Sept. 2. "What was challenging was whether the bank system could process the multiple cases in a timely way," Mr. Bostick said. "There were no available funds and 65,000 bottles of wine sitting in a warehouse -- it takes money to preserve, secure and catalog all that wine." Selling bottles in bulk is a typical form of transaction used in bankruptcy cases involving wine, said Spectrum Wine Auctions President Jason Boland. "(It's) best for everyone involved to get their cash as fast as possible," Mr. Bostick said. A significant portion of the acquired wine was set to be sold at an auction held at the Annenberg Space in Los Angeles on Dec. 9, Mr. Boland said. The next legal steps involved in the ongoing case are to recover avoidance claims and any overseas rights to the estate, according to Mr. Bostick. The class action suit against Fox Ortega Enterprises totals to about $70 million in claims, while the sale to Spectrum recovered about $3.6 million. "There's a long way to go to make up for the losses," Mr. Bostick said. GENESEE & WYOMING: Class Suits Over P&W Acquisition Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Genesee & Wyoming Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against shareholder class action lawsuits related to the acquisition of Providence and Worcester Railroad Company. On November 1, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of P&W for $25.00 per share, or $126.2 million. Headquartered in Worcester, Massachusetts, P&W is contiguous with G&W's New England Central Railroad (NECR) and Connecticut Southern Railroad (CSO). Rail service is provided by approximately 140 P&W employees with 32 locomotives across 163 miles of owned track and over approximately 350 miles under track access agreements, including exclusive freight access over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut, and Providence, Rhode Island, and trackage rights over Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Amtrak and CSX Corp. between New Haven, Connecticut, and Queens, New York. P&W interchanges with G&W's NECR and CSO railroads, as well as with CSX, Norfolk Southern, Pan Am Railways, Pan Am Southern, the Housatonic Railroad and the New York and Atlantic Railroad, and also connects to Canadian National and Canadian Pacific via NECR. P&W serves a diverse mix of aggregates, auto, chemicals, metals and lumber customers in southeastern New England, handling approximately 43,000 carloads and intermodal units annually. In addition, P&W provides rail service to three ports (Providence and Davisville, Rhode Island and New Haven, Connecticut) and to a United States Customs bonded intermodal terminal in Worcester, Massachusetts, that receives inbound intermodal containers for distribution in New England. P&W also owns approximately 45 acres of undeveloped waterfront land in East Providence, Rhode Island, that was initially created as deep water, rail served port through a $12 million investment. The Company expects to sell this undeveloped land. In connection with the acquisition of the P&W, in September 2016, four shareholder class action lawsuits were commenced in the Rhode Island Superior Court for Providence County against the Company, P&W and P&W's directors. Among other matters, the purported class actions challenge the sale of P&W to the Company, and allege that the P&W's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the P&W's shareholders by failing to maximize shareholder value in approving the merger agreement associated with the acquisition. The lawsuits also assert that P&W and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that any such lawsuit or related lawsuits would be material to the Company's results of operations or have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. The Company, along with the other defendants, vigorously denies all of the allegations in the purported class actions. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. owns or leases 121 freight railroads worldwide that are organized in 10 operating regions with approximately 7,200 employees and more than 2,800 customers. GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in "Mulvaney" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mulvaney v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:16-cv-81494 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), appointed on Nov. 18, 2016: -- Brian A. Hellings and the Ann Hellings 2016 Trust to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action; and -- Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel for the class. The GEO Group, Inc., is defending a purported shareholder class action lawsuit commenced by John J. Mulvaney in Florida, 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 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that it is brought by John J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period between March 1, 2012 through and including August 17, 2016. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. The Company says it intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and Messrs. Zoley and Evans. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this preliminary stage of the lawsuit. The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a fully-integrated real estate investment trust specializing in the ownership, leasing and management of correctional, detention and reentry facilities and the provision of community-based services and youth services in the United States, Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The Company owns, leases and operates a broad range of correctional and detention facilities including maximum, medium and minimum security prisons, immigration detention centers, minimum security detention centers, as well as community based reentry facilities and offers an expanded delivery of offender rehabilitation services under its 'GEO Continuum of Care' platform. GNC HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Pending in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarraf Gentile LLP on Dec. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GNC Holdings, Inc. ("GNC" or the "Company") ( NYSE : GNC ) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Martin v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01522. The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted adverse information about the Company's business and prospects. No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. Sarraf Gentile LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants. If you are a current Company shareholder and want to discuss your legal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contact Joseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP (telephone: 516-699-8890, extension 12; e-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com). GOLDEN KRUST: "Acevedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Acevedo, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery, Inc., Case No. 160234/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery, Inc. owns and operates a Caribbean cuisine fast food chain in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com GOODRICH CORPORATION: Sued Over Bargaining Agreement Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Tucker, Stephen Campbell, James Hensley, Allen Norton, Danny Johnson, Scott Robertson, Stephen Hickerson, Brandon Gallagher Brad Lynn, James Hall, Jamie Crouch, Bradly Primus, James T. Harper, and James Lusk v. Goodrich Corporation d/b/a United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems, United Steel, Paper And Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial And Service Workers International Union, and United Steel, Paper And Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial And Service Workers International Union, Local 6817, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00113 (E.D. Tenn., December 8, 2016), seeks to recover grievance damages on behalf of similarly situated employees, as a result of the Defendants' practice of improperly laying Plaintiffs off by subcontracting work in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Goodrich Corporation, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, and Defendant USW, Local 6817. Goodrich Corporation operates an aerospace manufacturing company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry Knox, Esq. KERRY KNOX, ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 South Academy Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Telephone: (615) 896-1000 HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Redmon" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- LEONA REDMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-11263 (N.D. Ill., December 12, 2016), seeks to recoup overtime wages under pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD. is a collection agency and law firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 763-6880 HC2 HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by March 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, is in the discovery phase, and fact discovery is scheduled to be completed on March 27, 2017. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the DBM Global's Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBM Global, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBM Global following the completion of the tender offer. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. The litigation is currently in the discovery phase, and fact discovery is scheduled to be completed on March 27, 2017. Trial is scheduled for March 12-15, 2018. "We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend our interests vigorously," the Company said. HC2 Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company which seeks to acquire and grow attractive businesses that the Company believes can generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns. While the Company generally intends to acquire controlling equity interests in its operating subsidiaries, the Company also invests to a more limited extent in a variety of debt instruments or noncontrolling equity interest positions. HC2's common stock trades on the NYSE MKT LLC under the symbol "HCHC". HERTZ CORP: Awaits Decision in Parent's Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corporation awaits ruling on motions to dismiss filed in the matter titled 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 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. 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, we are 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. The Hertz Corporation 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 operates its vehicle rental business primarily through the Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands from company-owned, licensee and franchisee locations in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and New Zealand. Through its Donlen subsidiary, Hertz provides vehicle leasing and fleet management services. HERTZ CORP: Awaits Ruling From Ninth Circuit in "Sobel" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hertz Corporation awaits decision on its appeal from a final judgment entered in the lawsuit initiated 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. The Hertz Corporation 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 operates its vehicle rental business primarily through the Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands from company-owned, licensee and franchisee locations in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and New Zealand. Through its Donlen subsidiary, Hertz provides vehicle leasing and fleet management services. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits January 24 Trial in "Powell" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Bancshares Incorporated awaits trial in the lawsuit captioned Powell v. Huntington National Bank, which is currently set for January 24, 2017, 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. Huntington is a defendant in a putative class action filed on October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and attorney's fees. Huntington removed the case to federal court, answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to Huntington. Following further briefing by the parties, the federal district court denied Huntington's motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 26, 2014. On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Huntington's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision. The matter was briefed and oral argument held, but after the oral argument, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The matter is moving forward in the trial court and Huntington has filed an early motion for summary judgment. The discovery stay has been lifted, and the parties have engaged in discovery. Trial is now set for January 24, 2017. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the financial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Bancshares Incorporated awaits approval of a settlement to resolve merger-related lawsuits filed in federal courts in Ohio, 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 16, 2016, Huntington completed its acquisition of FirstMerit Corporation in a stock and cash transaction valued at approximately $3.7 billion. FirstMerit Corporation was a diversified financial services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with operations in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Huntington is a defendant in five lawsuits filed in February and March of 2016 in state and federal courts in Ohio relating to the FirstMerit merger. The plaintiffs in each case are FirstMerit shareholders and have filed class action and derivative claims seeking to enjoin the merger. The plaintiffs also claim that the registration statement filed regarding the merger contained material omissions and/or misrepresentations and seek the filing of a revised registration statement, as well as money damages. Specifically as to Huntington, the plaintiffs claim Huntington aided and abetted in alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the FirstMerit board of directors in approving the merger, and in one complaint, allege that Huntington had direct involvement in making omissions and/or misrepresentations in the registration statement. Huntington is preparing its defense to the complaints. The state court cases have been consolidated and stayed pending the outcome of the federal court cases, and plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery was denied. The federal court cases have been consolidated and the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on numerous grounds. The court stayed discovery pending the outcome of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to delay the shareholder vote scheduled for June 13, 2016 on the basis that supplemental disclosures should be provided to the shareholders. A hearing took place on the preliminary injunction motion for Friday, June 10. The parties in the federal court cases have entered into a tentative settlement. The defendants made agreed supplemental disclosures in advance of the shareholder vote in exchange for which plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their preliminary injunction motion and agreed to a release of all claims in the federal and state actions. The parties have jointly moved for approval of the settlement by the federal court. The plaintiffs in the state court cases did not join in the settlement, and one of them filed a motion to be appointed the lead plaintiff in the state cases, which the federal court has denied. Should the settlement be approved, however, the claims in the state court cases will be released. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the financial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Unit Appeals Denial in Overdraft Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ FirstMerit Corporation appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit over overdraft fees, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated 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. Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against FirstMerit. The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at FirstMerit and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a proposed class and FirstMerit appealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. In August 2014, FirstMerit filed a motion asking the trial court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay). An order approving the stipulated revised class was entered on June 3, 2016. The trial court denied FirstMerit's motion to compel arbitration in August 2016 and FirstMerit filed a notice of appeal of that decision. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the financial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing and trial is set for March 22, 2018, in the Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the other generic defendants. On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the other generic defendants. On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. Trial is set for March 22, 2018. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing and no trial has been scheduled in the case, Opana ER(R) antitrust litigation. From June 2014 to February 2016, 14 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs. On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the "Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.). On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints. On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to dismiss certain state law claims. On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend. The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended complaints and the Company has filed its answer. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Trial Yet in Digoxin and Doxycycline Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that trial has not yet been scheduled in the case, In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation. From March 2016 to October 2016, 21 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2016. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation". No trial date has been scheduled. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: AWP Actions in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that two AWP actions remain stayed. On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan and others similarly situated filed a class action against several generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case has since been removed to federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17, 2016, this case was stayed. On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution of the federal court action. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. INCONTACT INC: Reached MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------ inContact, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and the Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated class action. On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the "Court") naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the "Gordon Action"). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Gordon Action on July 1, 2016. On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the "Stern Action"). On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact. Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Court naming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Subsidiary (the "Davis Action"). On July 14, 2016 the Court ordered the three actions consolidated and designated the amended complaint in the Gordon action as the operative complaint. The consolidated action purports to be a class action brought by shareholders alleging that inContact's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement with NICE pursuant to which the Company would be acquired as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NICE. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated. Without admitting to any fault, inContact and the Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated action. The parties are conducting confirmatory discovery prior to finalizing the settlement. inContact, Inc. provides cloud contact center software solutions through its inContact(R) Customer Interaction Cloud, an advanced contact handling and performance management software application. INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.), remains pending, Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of the purported class to purchase shares of the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. JAY PEAK: Class Action Attorneys Seek Brokerage Records ------------------------------------------------------- Alan Keays, writing for VT Digger, reports that attorneys in a class-action lawsuit against Jay Peak owner Ariel Quiros are seeking electronic records from his former son-in-law who managed accounts at the brokerage firm Quiros allegedly used to defraud investors. "After months of ineffective and intermittent back and forth, Plaintiffs still lack basic information necessary to move discovery along in this case," Thomas Tucker Ronzetti, the attorney for the investors in the class-action lawsuit, wrote in a recent motion. He later added, "Plaintiffs have been patient and reasonable with Joel Burstein, but to no avail." The class-action case, led by Brazilian investor Alexander Daccache, asks a judge to "compel" attorneys for Mr. Burstein to conduct electronic searches for terms related to the case for his personal devices, such as iPads and iPhones, as well as any cloud storage system he may have used. Attorneys for the investors and lawyers for Mr. Burstein, account manager for his father-in-law at Raymond James branch in Florida, have been going back and forth over what the search terms related to the case should be as well as how to go about the search. There are also questions whether the devices from several years ago are even available. "Burstein has also refused to state whether certain devices will be searched for responsive ESI (electronically stored information)," Mr. Ronzetti wrote, "verify whether ESI searches will cover cloud storage services, or confirm information about device contents that may otherwise be available to him and thus should be included in his ESI searches." Also, the debate between the parties involves the intricacies of Boolean searches and how to conduct them. Boolean searches allow a user to broaden, or limit a search, by combining terms with words such as "and, "or," or "not." "Plaintiffs promptly addressed counsel's questions, defined the referenced Boolean operators, and explained that depending on the system used to conduct the search the term 'ari' may not pick up 'ariel,'" Mr. Ronzetti wrote. The latest motion by the attorneys for the investors asks a judge to set a Dec. 30 deadline for lawyers for Mr. Burstein to conduct the searches and provide whatever relevant information they find. Mr. Burstein was a manager of a Coral Gables, Florida, branch of Raymond James where Quiros kept Jay Peak investor funds. Those funds were raised through the EB-5 immigrant investor program and meant for development projects in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, including hotels at Jay Peak and Burke Mountain. Federal and state lawsuits brought in April allege Mr. Quiros, owner of Q Resorts, a holding company that includes Jay Peak, and William Stenger, Jay Peak's former CEO, misused $200 million raised through EB-5 visa program, operating a "Ponzi-like" scheme. The Daccache lawsuit followed, with attorneys for investors alleging that Mr. Quiros "orchestrated" the fraud, while Mr. Stenger, Burstein and Raymond James "enabled" the alleged fraud. The bank, according to the Daccache lawsuit, allowed Mr. Quiros to create "an intricate web of transfers among various accounts at Raymond James to disguise the fact that most of the seven projects were either over budget or experiencing shortfalls." These shortfalls were due in large part to Mr. Quiros allegedly taking millions of dollars of investor money for his own use, the lawsuit states. Since the filing of the Daccache lawsuit, attorneys for the investors have submitted several motions in recent months seeking records from several parties related to the case, including Raymond James and Jong Weon (Alex) Choi, a longtime business associate of Quiros. Mr. Choi served as a principal officer for AnC Bio Korea. That company transferred intellectual property rights to AnC Bio Vermont, a company owned by Mr. Stenger, Mr. Quiros and Mr. Quiros' son, Ary. The construction and operation of the proposed $110 million biotech facility in Newport never materialized. Attorneys for the investors are also seeking financial records from Raymond James for accounts associated with Ary Quiros and Nicole Quiros, Ariel Quiros' daughter. Nicole Quiros, an accountant, had been married during the time of the alleged fraud to Burstein. Ary Quiros had operated Q Burke Mountain Resort in Vermont until it was later seized by federal regulators when they filed their lawsuit in April. J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification in Paldo Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Northern District of Illinois has not yet addressed class certification in the lawsuit filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13- cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was added. On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions are pending. The Northern District of Illinois has not yet addressed class certification. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. J2 GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Early 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Los Angeles Superior Court will consider final approval of the settlement in the case brought by LEO and Dancel in early 2017. On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative class-based settlement. On September 12, 2016, the Los Angeles Superior Court certified the class for settlement purposes only and preliminary approved the settlement. The court will consider final approval of the settlement in early 2017. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit remains pending. On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a decision has not been issued. "The Company believes that the claims in the Class Action are without merit, and it intends to defend vigorously against them. However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, the Company cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. K & R TRANSPORTATION: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcio D. Varela, Francisco J. Vera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. K & R Transportation, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC643325 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages, pay overtime, and provide meal and rest breaks to its employee drivers and crewmembers. The Defendants provide trucking and transportation services to and from ports in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits vs. D&Os Filed ------------------------------------------------------ Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The Company said, "Three of these actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131 filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016 and Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16- cv-06233 on August 5, 2016." "The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016. "On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our stock between September 2, 2013 and August 1, 2016. "Each complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company and its business operations and future prospects in light of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an imminent interruption in our supply of Auryxia. Each complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. There is no assurance, however, that we or the other defendants will be successful in our defense of either of these lawsuits or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits adverse to us or the other defendants, however, could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which the particular lawsuit is resolved." KOREA TIMES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kim" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Kon J. Kim, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. The Korea Times of Los Angeles, Inc., The Korea Times of San Francisco, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC643503 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the minimum wage and overtime wage rate in violation of the California Labor Code. The Korea Times of Los Angeles, Inc. and The Korea Times of San Francisco, Inc. are publishers of Korean language Monday-Saturday newspaper in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. Falvey, Esq. Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5200 Facsimile: (818) 500-9307 E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com armand.falveylaw@gmail.com - and - Joseph M. Lovretovich, Esq. David F. Tibor, Esq. JML LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 21052 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, CA 913567 Telephone: (818)610-8800 Facsimile: (818)610-3030 E-mail: jml@jmllaw.com david@jmllaw.com KREATION ORGANIC: "Kaputsos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Kaputsos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kreation Organic, Inc. d/b/a Kreation & 3rd Juice, d/b/a Kreation & 3rd Kafe, Kreation & 1023 Montana, Inc., Kreation & 1202 Abbott Kinney Inc., Bebegol Inc., Marjan Sarshar and Farzin Madjidi, and Does 10-20, inclusive, BC643229 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code. The Defendants operate a family of cafes and juiceries throughout the Los Angeles area specializing in organic food and juices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Teukolsky, Esq. Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq. BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP 733 Marsh Street, Ste. 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 322-3412 Facsimile: (805) 322-3413. E-mail: lt@bbemploymentlaw.com hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchasers Win Bid to Sanction Objector ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a motion for sanctions against an objector filed by indirect purchaser class plaintiffs in the polyurethane foam products litigation, according to Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's Nov. 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 reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not materially different from the amount previously accrued for this claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The full settlement amount was paid into escrow in the third quarter of 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on December 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the settlement." Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order approving the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to post an appeal bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors filed a motion to reconsider or stay the bond order, which the Court denied on May 12, 2016. Subsequently, three of the five objectors voluntarily dismissed their appeals. On June 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the remaining two appeals, one for failure to post an appeal bond, and the other because it was untimely filed. One of the two objectors filed a petition for rehearing en banc (requesting that all judges rather than the normal 3 rule on the appeal) on June 29, 2016. That petition was denied on September 27, 2016 and, on October 3, 2016, the Sixth Circuit stated that it would take no action on the objector's request to stay its ruling or any mandate. On September 27, 2016, the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the objector in District Court, which was granted on October 24, 2016. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces a wide range of engineered components and products found in many homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes. The Company makes components that are often hidden within, but integral to, its customers' products. LEGGETT & PLATT: Must Attend Mediation in Polyurethane Foam MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ordered all parties in the indirect purchaser class action in the polyurethane foam antitrust multidistrict litigation to attend non-binding mediation, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, 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, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers, brought damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and were seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also sought attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations." The Company denied all allegations. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces a wide range of engineered components and products found in many homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes. The Company makes components that are often hidden within, but integral to, its customers' products. LEPAGE BAKERIES: Reached $1.25MM Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 8, 2016, that Flowers Foods' subsidiary, Lepage Bakeries, on November 8, 2016, reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit seeking class action treatment (Bokanoski et al. v. Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC and CK Sales Co., LLC), originally filed by Bart Bokanoski and certain other plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on January 6, 2015, for $1.25 million, including attorneys' fees. The settlement also includes certain non-economic terms which are intended to strengthen and enhance the independent contractor model. This agreement, which includes 49 territories, is subject to court approval. LICE TROOPERS: Faces "Hidalgo" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LOLA HIDALGO and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. LICE TROOPERS INC. and ARIE HAREL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25150-DLG (S.D. Fla., December 12, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant LICE TROOPERS INC. provides head lice removal services in several lice treatment centers, located throughout Miami-Dade County areas. Defendant also provides in home inspections and treatment services, as well as school and camp screenings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT: Sued in Ill. Over Excessive Record Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin P. Friedman, as trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., Case No. 2016CH15920 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought on behalf of all who, when selling their condominium units, were effectively compelled to pay the Defendant's unreasonable and excessive fees to obtain copies of certain records that the Illinois Condominium Property Act requires condominium sellers to provide upon a condominium purchaser's demand. Lieberman Management Services, Inc. owns and operates a condominium association management company with its principal place of business at 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1550, Chicago, IL 60606. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Blumenthal, Esq. Karl L. Felbinger, Esq. JEFFREY C. BLUMENTHAL CHARTERED 2970 Maria A venue, Suite #223 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (847) 498-3220 Facsimile: (847) 498-3221 E-mail: Jeffrey@jcblawyer.com kfelbinger@gmail.com - and - Charles R. Franklin, Esq. Michael A. Albert, Esq. FRANKLIN LAW GROUP 181 Waukegan Rd., Suite 205 Northfield, IL 60093-2700 Telephone: (847) 716-2380 Facsimile: (847) 716-2390 E-mail: cfranklin@charlesfranklinlaw.com malbert@charlesfranklinlaw.com LIONS GATE: Court Won't Rush Proceedings in Starz Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings filed in the consolidated lawsuit titled In re Starz Stockholder Litigation, according to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.'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, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for a combination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4 billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger, Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will be converted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement. Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven 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; City of Providence v. Starz, et al., C.A. No. 12604; and Teamsters Local 170 Pension Fund v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 12705. The complaints name as defendants the members of the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. Some of the complaints also name as defendants Starz, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop Investments, LLC ("Hilltop"), Dr. Rachesky and LionTree. The complaints allege, 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; that Dr. Malone (and, in one action, Mr. Bennett) is a controlling stockholder who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starz stockholders in connection with the merger (and, in certain of the actions, by entering into the exchange agreement); and that some or all of Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop, and LionTree aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. Some or all of the complaints seek, among other relief, rescission of the proposed merger, an injunction to prevent the merger from proceeding, a judgment declaring the exchange agreement is invalid and void, damages, and/or attorneys' fees. The actions have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action complaint on August 16, 2016. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a premier next generation global content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, home entertainment, international distribution and sales, branded channel platforms, interactive ventures and games, and location-based entertainment. LIONS GATE: Faces "Gross" Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is facing a merger-related stockholder class action lawsuit in Colorado, 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 June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for a combination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4 billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger, Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will be converted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement. On August 9, 2016, a 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. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a premier next generation global content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, home entertainment, international distribution and sales, branded channel platforms, interactive ventures and games, and location-based entertainment. LIONS GATE: "Levy" Suit in New York Challenges Merger With Starz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is facing a merger-related putative class action lawsuit commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Nassau, 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, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for a combination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4 billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger, Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will be converted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement. On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et al., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendants Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger, and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors failed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxy statement/prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 in connection with the proposed merger. Defendants believe that the complaints are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a premier next generation global content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, home entertainment, international distribution and sales, branded channel platforms, interactive ventures and games, and location-based entertainment. MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: New York Class Action at Preliminary Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit in New York is at a preliminary stage. On March 11, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento ("Mr. Vento"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr. Gordo"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo made false and misleading statements regarding the financial performance and guidance during the alleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court deems proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against it and the Company does not believe that the outcome of this legal proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Because the case is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if any. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries is a cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack devices and other magicJack products and services. MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger Suits Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- MainSource Financial Group, Inc., awaits approval of its settlement to resolve merger-related lawsuits, 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 20, 2016, the Company acquired 100% of the outstanding common shares of Cheviot Financial Corp. ("Cheviot") and its subsidiary Cheviot Savings Bank in exchange for stock and cash. Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging the proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its directors, and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These actions are captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15, 2016); and (2) Stephen Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case No. A1600936 (filed February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions"). On February 29, 2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the actions under Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (collectively, the "Actions"). The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to the stockholders of Cheviot, that the consideration to be received by the stockholders is inadequate and undervalues Cheviot, that the Merger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices that purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other bidders from making successful competing offers for Cheviot, that the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of the directors of Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the Merger Agreement involves conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Cheviot. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the registration statement on Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connection with the Merger, provides materially misleading and incomplete information rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to make an informed decision with respect to the Merger. On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the settlement of the Actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Cheviot's stockholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith. The terms of the settlement were disclosed to former Cheviot stockholders pursuant to a Notice mailed on September 27, 2016. The court is scheduled to consider the final settlement at a hearing to be held on December 2, 2016. The Company does not anticipate a material financial impact as a result of the Actions, the MOU, or the settlement. MainSource Financial Group, Inc., is a financial holding company whose principal activity is the ownership and management of its subsidiary bank, MainSource Bank headquartered in Greensburg, Indiana. Through its non-bank affiliates, the Company provides services incidental to the business of banking. MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Lawyer Responds to Chemo Settlement Objections ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Cross, writing for Windsor Star, reports that lawyer Harvey Strosberg is encouraging his clients -- diluted chemotherapy victims -- to object if they're outraged over the proposed $2.375-million class-action settlement his firm helped negotiate. "They're my clients, I love them, even though they're angry at me," the prominent Windsor class-action lawyer said, as a Dec. 7 deadline loomed for the 1,202 members of the diluted chemo lawsuit to either opt out (and sue independently) or submit a letter of objection. He said he understands the anger over the meagre size of the proposed payout, which would amount to as little as $1,500 per victim. But the evidence simply wasn't there, he said, to prove that the diluted cancer drugs harmed them. "If we go to trial, we'll lose and we'll lose badly," Mr. Strosberg said. "We won't get a dime." He acknowledged the money is "not enough. "But it's a great settlement because in comparison to nothing, it's a lot better than nothing." Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem will decide Jan. 10 whether to approve the settlement, and Mr. Strosberg said the judge will take into account the letters of objection. He may decide to hear from some of the writers, who are upset not only with the $1.8- million payout to victims, but also with the $400,000 fee for lawyers. "The judge will say it's a reasonable fee or it's not a reasonable fee, he can say 'I'll not approve the settlement,' and then we'll be back to square one," Mr. Strosberg said. "That's his job." The class-action members, including 290 adult cancer patients from Windsor, were administered chemo that was mistakenly diluted so they received seven to 10 per cent less drugs than prescribed. An expert hired by the Ontario government concluded that the impact on patients, given the fact these diluted drugs were often combined with other cancer-killing drugs, was small. There have been 71 deaths so far out of the 290 Windsor patients. "We started this action and the science, it dictated the result, we're not magicians," Mr. Strosberg said. "We had to get an expert saying that the reduction in the treatment at 10 per cent caused people to die or people getting sicker and we couldn't do that. The evidence was not there." He said the anxiety and fear people suffered isn't compensable, unless it gets to the point where they're diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. In such a case, the person should probably opt out of the class action and pursue an individual lawsuit, he suggested. Responding to criticism that the lawyers didn't listen to people's stories, he said they heard many stories from many class members, but didn't hear from everyone. "It's counter productive for us to get everyone's story," he said. The lawsuit alleges negligence by Mezentco Solutions Inc., better known as Marchese Hospital Solutions, the drug firm that supplied several hospitals in Ontario and New Brunswick -- including Windsor Regional Hospital -- with a premixed intravenous chemotherapy treatment. The hospitals along with Medbuy, a consortium set up by hospitals to buy products in higher volumes, were added to the lawsuit recently. If the settlement is approved, Medbuy, on behalf of itself and the hospitals, will together pay half the settlement, with Mezentco paying the other half. Strosberg said insurance companies will cover the costs. "People are angry and upset and rightly so, I understand. It's easier to be angry with your lawyer when your lawyer says we'll lose." MDC PARTNERS: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lead Plaintiffs appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the dismissal of their shareholder class action lawsuit against MDC Partners Inc., 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 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative class action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and former CAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier and co-lead plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed an amended complaint, adding two additional defendants, Mitchell Gendel and Michael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board of Directors. The plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal controls. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 9, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on April 8, 2016, and the Company filed a reply brief on May 9, 2016. By order granted on September 30, 2016, the U.S. District Court presiding over the case granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On November 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the U.S. District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. MDC Partners Inc. is one of the fastest-growing and most influential marketing and communications networks in the world. The Company's 50+ advertising, public relations, media, branding, digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected brands. MDC PARTNERS: "Paniccia" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit initiated by Roberto Paniccia in Ontario, Canada, remains pending, according to MDC Partners 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 August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SEC investigation. The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend this suit. A case management judge has now been appointed but a date for an initial case conference has not yet been set. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MDC Partners Inc. is one of the fastest-growing and most influential marketing and communications networks in the world. The Company's 50+ advertising, public relations, media, branding, digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected brands. MDL 2371: Appeal in UMS Patent Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that UMS and the j2 Global affiliate's appeal in a multi-district litigation is pending. On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non- infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in- suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). The appeal is pending. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal From Dismissal of LFR Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their motion for relief from the dismissal judgment in the lawsuit involving Atmel Corporation remains pending, Microchip Technology Incorporated 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 March 4, 2014, LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against the Company's Atmel subsidiary, the Company's French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than three years later. The District Court dismissed the case on August 21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief from the dismissal judgment. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Microchip Technology Incorporated provides specialized semiconductor products for a wide variety of embedded control applications. The Company's manufacturing operations include wafer fabrication, wafer probe and assembly and test. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Defends Airbag Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microchip Technology Incorporated's subsidiary, Atmel Corporation, continues to defend the consolidated lawsuit styled In re: Continental Airbag Products Liability 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. On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased vehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporating allegedly defective application specific integrated circuits manufactured by the Company's Atmel subsidiary between 2006 and 2010), and thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss in the value of their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs are seeking, individually and on behalf of a putative class, unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other relief. The Company's Atmel subsidiary intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously. Microchip Technology Incorporated provides specialized semiconductor products for a wide variety of embedded control applications. The Company's manufacturing operations include wafer fabrication, wafer probe and assembly and test. NAT'L RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reports that a group of Mississippi Mills residents is suing the National Research Council for more than $40 million after residential wells were contaminated by chemicals originating from an NRC fire lab in their neighbourhood. It's been almost a year since homeowners living near the fire safety testing facility on Ramsay Concession Road 8 in Mississippi Mills were told their water was contaminated and they should stop drinking it. The water contained the chemicals often found in firefighting foams -- chemicals that were tested in the NRC lab. In July, the NRC confirmed perfluoroalkylated substances, or PFAS, found in several, nearby residential wells had originated from its lab. Health Canada notes that studies on animals show "high levels of PFAS have been linked with negative health effects . . . including liver damage and impacts on neurological development." Lawsuit claims NRC was negligent Residents dealing with the contamination said they were having trouble getting answers from the NRC, so they hired Michael Hebert, an environmental lawyer with Beament, Hebert and Nicholson. Mr. Hebert has since filed a statement of claim in what is expected to become a class-action lawsuit, one that could eventually include some 70 nearby residents. The four plaintiffs in the case claim the NRC breached several environmental protection laws, was negligent in the use, handling, application, storage and disposal of contaminants and is "strictly liable for the escape" of those contaminants. The claim calls for the NRC to "completely eliminate all traces of contaminants and that the defendant must pay the cost of doing so." The $40 million the plaintiffs request in damages is for "remediation costs, engineering and other professional costs, financing costs and diminution in value of the properties of the plaintiffs and the other class members." The claim also includes $2 million in punitive damages. None of the claims in the class-action have been tested in court. NRC yet to file statement of defence "We had a fair number of people who signed up early on in the process," said Mr. Hebert. "We decided the only way to tackle the problem was to proceed by way of class-action." Hebert said his office is waiting for the federal government to file its statement of defence and provide the many documents, studies and test results his clients and his firm have requested. "There's so many reports that were done that are missing. They have guards guarding the facility. It's quite secretive -- it has been to date anyway," said Mr. Hebert, who added that his firm had asked to take samples when the NRC was carrying out a soil remediation program on its property, but it was not allowed. A spokesperson with the NRC told CBC News they've been "informed of legal action surrounding the National Fire Research Laboratory. We are in the process of reviewing the claim and will be responding at the appropriate time." Residents to get bottled water until at least 2018 But Mr. Hebert said lawyers from the federal justice department are representing the NRC and have asked for an extension to file a statement of defence. Last month, the National Research Council said it will continue sampling and testing drinking water, maintaining water filtration systems and providing bottled water to neighbouring residents until the fall of 2018 at the earliest. "I know there was a significant period of time that this has been on-going and the people were only notified and preventative steps taken as of last December and this facility has been operating since about 1981," said Mr. Hebert. "There's so many substances out there that aren't even accounted for. It's an important case." NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued over Reverse Mortgage Loan Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Glendale Hoggard and Lucy Hoggard, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage d/b/a Champion Mortgage, Case No. 8895 (D.C. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), arises out of Champion's alleged unlawful practice of declaring reverse mortgage loans in default for failure to return an Annual Occupancy Certificate and then charging borrowers a monthly fee for a drive-by occupancy inspection without giving borrowers notice of the inspection. Headquartered in Lewisville, Texas, Nationstar Mortgage provides residential mortgage loan services in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq. Sophia Goren, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: lcellini@tzlegal.com sgoren@tzlegal.com NESTLE USA: "Ross" Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Meals ------------------------------------------------------------ COURTNEY ROSS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2016), was filed for the alleged deceptive practice by Defendant of marketing its Lean Cuisine(R) frozen meals as having "No Preservatives" when many of them contain citric acid (2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid), a well- known preservative commonly used in commercial food and drink products. Defendant develops, markets and sells food products under the Lean Cuisine(R) brand name throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands 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 putative class action lawsuit filed by Jessica Paree remains stayed in Florida. On April 15, 2016, Jarden Corporation became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Newell Brands, as a result of a series of merger transactions (the "Jarden Acquisition"). The Jarden Acquisition was effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 13, 2015 between the Company, Jarden and two wholly- owned subsidiaries of the Company. Following the Jarden Acquisition, the Company was renamed Newell Brands Inc. Jarden is a leading, global consumer products company with leading brands such as Yankee Candle(R), Crock-Pot(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr. Coffee(R), Oster(R), Coleman(R), First Alert(R), Rawlings(R), Jostens(R), K2(R), Marker(R), Marmot(R), Volkl(R) and many others. A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E. Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the individually named director defendants, all of whom were directors of Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also named as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with the Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in the merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certain information related to the financial analyses performed by Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger transactions, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Jarden transaction is consummated, an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court that Jarden's individual board members account for all damages allegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the outcome of the Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an order staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016, and the case remains stayed at this time, per the parties' request. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Newell Brands Inc., formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc., is a global marketer of consumer and commercial products that help people get more out of life every day. The Company's products are marketed under a strong portfolio of leading brands, including Paper Mate(R), Sharpie(R), Dymo(R), EXPO(R), Parker(R), Elmer's(R), Coleman(R), Jostens(R), Marmot(R), Rawlings(R), Irwin(R), Lenox(R), Oster(R), Sunbeam(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr. Coffee(R), Rubbermaid Commercial Products(R), Graco(R), Baby Jogger(R), NUK(R), Calphalon(R), Rubbermaid(R), Contigo(R), First Alert(R), Waddington and Yankee Candle(R). NEWELL BRANDS: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Hirsch" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands Inc. and its subsidiaries have been voluntarily dismissed from the purported class action lawsuit filed by Vincent A. Hirsch, 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 15, 2016, Jarden Corporation became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Newell Brands, as a result of a series of merger transactions (the "Jarden Acquisition"). The Jarden Acquisition was effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 13, 2015 between the Company, Jarden and two wholly- owned subsidiaries of the Company. Following the Jarden Acquisition, the Company was renamed Newell Brands Inc. Jarden is a leading, global consumer products company with leading brands such as Yankee Candle(R), Crock-Pot(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr. Coffee(R), Oster(R), Coleman(R), First Alert(R), Rawlings(R), Jostens(R), K2(R), Marker(R), Marmot(R), Volkl(R) and many others. A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E. Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross, Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16- CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director defendants, who were directors of Jarden. The Company and its subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II were also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of the Company and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information. In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet, pursuant to which the Company added certain disclosures to its Registration Statement on Form S-4. Thereafter, on July 19, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, and the lead plaintiff and lead counsel contemporaneously filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement. That motion was later withdrawn, and lead counsel has filed a motion to appoint new lead counsel. The Company and its subsidiaries have subsequently been voluntarily dismissed from the action. The action remains pending against the individual defendants. Newell Brands Inc., formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc., is a global marketer of consumer and commercial products that help people get more out of life every day. The Company's products are marketed under a strong portfolio of leading brands, including Paper Mate(R), Sharpie(R), Dymo(R), EXPO(R), Parker(R), Elmer's(R), Coleman(R), Jostens(R), Marmot(R), Rawlings(R), Irwin(R), Lenox(R), Oster(R), Sunbeam(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr. Coffee(R), Rubbermaid Commercial Products(R), Graco(R), Baby Jogger(R), NUK(R), Calphalon(R), Rubbermaid(R), Contigo(R), First Alert(R), Waddington and Yankee Candle(R). NORTHERN OIL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Fries v. Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06543 (S.D.N.Y.), competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead class counsel are before Judge Edgardo Ramos: -- Motion to Appoint Matthew Atkinson and Richard Miller as Lead Plaintiff, and -- Motion to Appoint Vittorio Franceschi to serve as lead plaintiff(s) and approve the selection of lead counsel. Northern Oil And Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "On August 18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against our company, Michael Reger (our former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (our chief financial officer and interim chief executive officer) as defendants. The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." Fries is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and production of crude oil and natural gas properties. The Company's common stock trades on the NYSE MKT market under the symbol "NOG". ORTHOTOUCH: Georgiou Accused of Hijacking Highveld Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that in a most bizarre turn of events, the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG) has accused property magnate Nic Georgiou of attempting to "hijack" an imminent class action suit against him by "buying off" the six applicants in the case. These six individuals were representatives of the 7 000 HSAG investors and their applications to institute a class action against Georgiou and the application to rescind the Orthotouch scheme of arrangement was funded by the financial contributions of their fellow HSAG members. The HSAG claims in court papers that Georgiou approached the six individuals and paid them money to settle their claims against him and Orthotouch. The six then proceeded in terms of the transaction to secretly-appointed new attorneys and applied to the Johannesburg High Court to withdraw their original application. If this withdrawal application succeeds it will mean the end of the class action, as the HSAG would not be able to bring a new application because the prescribed time period to bring such an application has lapsed. From the court papers it is not apparent how much Georgiou paid the six applicants. HSAG response In a strongly-worded affidavit Jacques Theron, the HSAG's attorney of record, says this happened behind the HSAG and legal team's back and is a "deliberate stratagem" of Georgiou to "thwart the class action". "The attempted withdrawal of the application and the aim to sabotage the class action is not only an offence against the basic principles and very purpose of a class action, but also against the legal provisions, as set out in Section 38(c) of the Constitution of South Africa." Ms. Theron emphasises that the six individuals were chosen to merely represent disgruntled investors who wanted to have the controversial Orthotouch scheme of arrangement in 2014 rescinded and to institute a class action against Mr. Georgiou. They were carefully chosen to represent the other investors and their legal fees were paid by financial contributions of the 7 000 HSAG members. He adds that the six did not know each other and that it is "not a coincidence" that they went to the same attorney to file their notice of withdrawal applications. Ms. Theron also claims that Mr. Georgiou admitted to the HSAG steering committee that he settled the claims of the six applicants during a meeting in Mossel Bay, but that he only became aware of what was going on when the notice of withdrawal was served. Moneyweb offered Mr. Georgiou an opportunity to respond to the allegations, but he had not replied by the time of publishing. Mr. Georgiou to repay Highveld Syndication 21 and 22 investors The latest revelations come after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) denied Mr. Georgiou leave to appeal against a previous judgment that ordered him to repay investors of the Highveld Syndication 21 and 22 companies. These investors signed different contracts with Mr. Georgiou which contained a buyback clause that was not honoured. Mr. Georgiou will now have to repay around R30 million to 46 investors and open the door for the other investors in these schemes to institute similar claims. Not the first time This is not the first time Georgiou has approached key individuals and investors that form part of the HSAG. Earlier this year it became apparent that Elna Visagie and Herman Lombaard, previously two of the most active campaigners of the class action and members of the HSAG, were approached by Mr. Georgiou and accepted employment at Orthotouch. They are apparently earning salaries as high as R100 000 a month. PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Liam Stack, writing for The New York Times, reports that a group of African-American workers filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court on Dec. 6 against a nationwide job placement agency and several of its clients, accusing them of discriminating against black applicants by favoring Hispanic applicants. The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the agency, MVP Staffing, used a range of discriminatory practices, including code words for job applicants of different races, to honor the requests of corporate clients who refused to employ African-Americans in temporary positions. The company operates about 60 offices in 38 states. The suit accuses the company of eight counts of racial discrimination based on the operations of its office in Cicero, Ill. A phone message and an email seeking comment from MVP Staffing on Dec. 5 were not returned, and a person who answered the phone on Dec. 6 declined to comment. The other companies named in the suit are also in the Chicago area. They are Personnel Staffing Group, the Segerdahl Group, Mercury Plastics Inc., Jet Lithocolor, The Penray Companies Inc., WestRock Consumer Packaging Group, AGI Media, Lawrence Foods Inc. and the Blommer Chocolate Company. Representatives at Mercury, Personnel and WestRock declined to comment on Dec. 6; the others did not respond to requests. Joe Sellers, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he believed that racial discrimination was widespread in the staffing industry, which connects job seekers with employment that is often temporary. "What we have seen in this industry is that this is a more widespread phenomenon than what we have just found in this case, with this company," Mr. Sellers said. "The staffing agencies follow the requests made by the client companies even if they happen to be ones that might exclude people based on race." Mr. Sellers said there were several other anti-discrimination class-action lawsuits in process against staffing agencies and their client companies in Illinois. The agencies "do the bidding of the employers on whose behalf they are reviewing candidates," he said. "It is a process readily susceptible to abuse." Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, said the discriminatory practices alleged at staffing agencies were "a microcosm of the problem that's happening across our economy." "Companies have figured out that if they outsource their recruiting and hiring, and what's often considered to be the messy parts of their H.R. function, that they can then absolve themselves of any liability," Ms. Ruckelshaus said. That hits low-wage minority workers the hardest because of "entrenched and persistent discrimination," she said. Kevin James, 29, one of the named plaintiffs in the suit, said he had applied for work through MVP on roughly 20 occasions but had been given a job only once. He sat in the MVP office waiting in vain while Hispanic applicants got assignments, he said. On the one occasion when Mr. James was given a job, he said, he was sent to a packaging company where supervisors were hostile toward him, "hovering" over him and other black employees as they worked. "It just seemed like a lot of tension, like they didn't really want me to be there," Mr. James said. He added that the staff of the MVP office in Cicero "was mainly Mexicans" and that the employees were not welcoming toward African-American job seekers. "I'd say the whole staff was Mexican," he said. "It was like the whole thing was built up mainly around Hispanics." Rosa Ceja, 29, a former dispatcher at MVP's office in Elmwood Park, Ill., said the company used a system of code words in an attempt to conceal its preferential treatment of Hispanics. She said her work often took her to the Cicero office, where the same system was in place. Ms. Ceja said MVP employees referred to African-American and white job applicants as "guapos," which means "handsome ones" in Spanish, and to Hispanics as "feos," or "ugly ones." "They said African-Americans wanted to keep their hands clean and not get dirty and not work as hard as a Mexican -- that's why they called them guapos," she said. MVP employees were told that using the words "black" or "Mexican" instead of the code words, especially in an email, was a fireable offense. The code words were in Spanish because "all of the managers" who refused to hire African-Americans were Hispanic, Ms. Ceja said. Some would try to conceal their request by saying they wanted only employees who listened to 107.9 FM, a Spanish-language radio station in the Chicago area. "That was a code word for us to only send Mexicans," she said. The vast majority of Hispanic job applicants served by MVP were in the United States illegally, Ms. Ceja added, and their vulnerability made them attractive short-term workers. "That makes it harder for them to complain or do anything," she said. "They are so scared to raise their voice and say, 'Hey, this is not fair.'" Ms. Ceja said MVP employees would start the day by separating Hispanic job applicants from African-Americans. They would enter the Hispanic applicants' contact information into a database so they could be easily reached when jobs opened up. African- American applicants rarely received the same treatment, she said: They were usually instructed to go to an MVP office at dawn to wait for assignments that rarely came. When African-Americans were given jobs, they were often marked "D.N.R." when they returned, short for "do not return" to the client company, Ms. Ceja said. Dispatchers who sent African- Americans to a company that had asked not to be sent black employees would be reprimanded by their boss, she added. "If it was 10 Mexicans that would come at 1:30 p.m., and 25 African-Americans that were there at 4:30 a.m. and were waiting to be sent to work, they would send the Mexicans first," she said. PMK*BNC: Faces "Vainer" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Interns ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandr Vainer and Joscelyn Corporan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PMK*BNC, Inc., Case No. 522010/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly compensate its interns for all hours worked between April 1, 2012 and September 1, 2013. PMK*BNC, Inc. operates an entertainment agency located at 622 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10017. The Plaintiff is represented by: Juno Turner, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 PROGRESSIVE: Auto Body Shops' Class Action Can't Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- John Huetter, writing for RND, reports that some Ohio collision repairers might have a more difficult time seeking class-action lawsuits against insurers following a state Appellate Court ruling. In Blue Ash Auto et al v. Progressive, a group of collision repairers had accused the insurer of tortiously interfering with their business by unilaterally dictating what labor rates and procedures it'd reimburse. The auto body shops argued that these mandates "do not necessarily allow for them to restore an insured's car to its original, pre-loss condition and that the limitations violate both Ohio law and Progressive's own insurance policies," as the Eighth District Court of Appeals summarized the case. Progressive, according to the appellate court's summary, said that it was being competitive and DRP shops did the work under the terms other shops had criticized. (It should be noted that the DRP shops get a big perk in exchange for those discounts: Progressive recommends them to its clients, allowing the repairers to theoretically recoup some of the costs through volume.) The shops sought to recoup whatever parts and labor costs they had to eat to serve Progressive customers and "declaratory relief in the form of an order requiring Progressive to indemnify them from any liability arising from their compliance with Progressive's restrictions." The Eighth District Appellate Court stressed that it wasn't ruling on whether or not the auto body shops' case was any good. The decision applied only to whether the shops met legal tests to expand the case into a gigantic statewide class of basically any non-DRP shop that touched a Progressive claim for the past 11 years: "All Ohio registered auto body repair shops, or registered individuals, with the exception of those members of Progressive's Direct Repair Program that have performed physical auto body repairs paid for directly or indirectly, partially or in full, by Progressive as a result of Automobile insurance policies issued by Progressive, from August 7, 2005 through present." Ohio has seven rules plaintiffs need to meet before they get class-action status. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas ruled that the auto body shops failed to satisfy all but three of these requirements, and the appellate court upheld the decision Dec. 1. The trial court and appellate court both agreed that any relief had to apply to the entire class under the Rules of Civil Procedures, which states plaintiffs get class-action status when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." According to the appellate court, this means that situations where every plaintiff would deserve different amounts of money and liability from a losing defendant couldn't count as a class-action suit. (For example, a shop that worked for a Progressive claimant once during the class time versus one that did a lot of repair orders for the carrier.) Also, Ohio court precedent doesn't allow class-action status if the "injunctive relief is merely incidental to the primary claim for money damages." The trial court decided that the liability indemnification was basically incidental, while the shops had argued they were separate things: Liability immunity keeps the shops which repaired cars following Progressive's alleged "we don't pay for that" rules from risking unknown future legal bills for the allegedly inadequate work, while the monetary judgment helps the shops which did all the allegedly necessary work and ate the costs of anything Progressive wouldn't reimburse, based on the shops' argument. "Appellants argue that the injunctive relief sought under their Civ.R. 23(B)(2) claim is separate and inverse from the damages sought under their Civ.R. 23(B)(3) tortious interference claim," the Eighth District Appellate Court wrote. "Appellants argue that their Civ.R. 23(B)(2) claim seeks indemnification for potential liability arising from their adherence to Progressive's mandates while their Civ.R. 23(B)(3) claim seeks unrelated damages for situations in which they perform necessary repairs notwithstanding Progressive's refusal to pay. But the court ruled that both were sort of the same thing: costs that shops had to eat because of something Progressive allegedly did, regardless of if the costs were incurred during a repair or in a courtroom. Also, and "more importantly," according to the court, the Ohio Supreme Court had already ruled in a different case that "'claims for declaratory relief that merely lay a foundation for subsequent determinations regarding liability or that facilitate an award of damages do not meet the requirement for certification.'" And there's the problem of teasing out what the actual effects of Progressive's position were for each member of the proposed class, according to the appellate court ruling: It is easy to understand the Supreme Court's hesitance to so extend Civ.R. 23(B)(2) class certifications where, as here, establishing the applicability of the desired indemnification would require a case-by-case analysis of facts pertinent to the repair. Whether Progressive rightfully or wrongfully refused to pay for a particular service or part would need to be examined in each instance of an allegedly faulty repair. A myriad of other issues would also need to be resolved as well. Causation in particular would be a case-by-case dispute that cannot be resolved by the appellants desired relief. For example: Was the allegedly defective repair in a particular incident due to Progressive's mandates or the body shop's own negligent labor performance within those mandates? Was the shop's desired service or part appropriate and necessary for each particular repair that is later deemed faulty? How can the trial court deem that Progressive is always liable when it and the shop diverge on the manner or type of repair to be performed without the individualized context of every possible car repair that may occur? As the trial court noted, any indemnification would be premised on an initial decision that the estimate provided by Progressive was inadequate based on the unique facts of each case. These issues simply cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis with any finality without considering the facts pertinent to a particular instance of negligent repair. The Cuyahoga County Court also decided that the case didn't meet court rules that "the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" and "a class action is superior to other available methods" to handle the dispute. The appellate court agreed, ruling that the case was simply too case-by-case to work as a class-action. "The trial court aptly pointed out that an individualized inquiry would be necessary for not just each potential class member, but every separate instance where such class members conducted a repair under the alleged limitations imposed by Progressive," Judge Eileen Gallagher wrote, with Judges Sean Gallagher and Mary Boyle concurring. "The court would have to examine each repair and consider whether the additional services or parts that Progressive allegedly denied to the particular class member were necessary to restore the damaged vehicle in question to its pre-loss condition. The shops had argued that everything Progressive wouldn't reimburse was "necessary to properly repair every conceivable damaged vehicle," as the Eighth District summarized somewhat skeptically, noting that a court agreeing with this wasn't being fair to Progressive: "Appellants' theory leaves no room for Progressive to exercise its right to dispute these facts in this litigation," the court wrote. "Because the resolution of these disputes would require a case-by- case analysis of every Progressive repair conducted by every member of the class, we cannot say that common questions of law or fact predominate over the looming mass of individualized inquires that would dominate this litigation." As noted above, the court didn't rule on the merits of the case itself, just that it didn't meet its test to be a wider class- action lawsuit. So the plaintiff shops might yet win their lawsuit based on each repairer's individual history with Progressive. (Or vice versa, Progressive wins based on the facts of claims handled with those shops.) However, the court's ruling makes it hard to see how repairers will be able to rate similar class-action status against insurers in Ohio's Eighth District, unless they apparently can point to an improper act applied uniformly that somehow affected all body shops in a prospective class equally. (That seems like a tough threshold for any class-action case.) PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Retirement Sys. Suit Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court granted an extension of the stay from November 20, 2016 until January 20, 2017, in the case Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL. On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL. On October 10, 2016, the Court granted an extension of the stay of the proceeding from November 20, 2016 until January 20, 2017, order to allow a special litigation committee, created by the Company's board of directors, additional time to investigate, review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and claims asserted in or relating to this action and determine the Company's response thereto. The special litigation committee's review of the facts is ongoing. The Providence Service Corporation is a holding company, which owns controlling and noncontrolling interests in companies which provide critical healthcare and workforce development services. PTT EXPLORATION: Indonesia Mulls Suit Over Montara Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------------ Hans Nicholas Jong, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that the government is planning to take Thailand-based oil producer PTT Exploration and Production (PTTEP) Australasia to court, in support of a legal fight by a group of Indonesian fishermen who allegedly suffered from contamination caused by the company's operations in Timor Sea. The government plans to file a lawsuit at the Central Jakarta District Court to demand the company pay for environmental damage allegedly caused by an oil spill following an explosion at the Montara oil rig in the Timor Sea in 2009. "We are preparing the lawsuit now. We hope it will be processed as soon as possible in Central Jakarta because we already have all the documents," maritime security affairs deputy at the Office of the Coordinating Maritime Affairs Minister, Arif Havas Oegroseno, told The Jakarta Post on Dec. 6. Arif, who leads the national team on the 2009 Montara Oil Spill Disaster in the Timor Sea Case Settlement, said the planned lawsuit was separate from the class action suit by the fishermen currently being processed in the Australian Federal Court in Sydney. He said, however, the government had no plans to suspend the licenses or freeze the assets of PTTEP in Indonesia, as reported by the Post on Dec. 5. The class action was filed by more than 13,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers who are seeking more than A$200 million (US$149 million) to cover alleged damages. Their livelihoods were devastated after the explosion at PTTEP's Montara oil rig some 690 kilometers west of Darwin and 250 km southeast of Rote Island, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), which resulted in gas and oil from the rig gushing into the Timor Sea for more than 70 days. It is estimated that in excess of 300,000 liters of oil per day contaminated the sea, equivalent to pouring 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools of toxic sludge daily into the ocean over the months the spill continued. Following the oil spill, fish catches and seaweed harvests in NTT continued to decline in the heavily polluted waters. The Timor Sea Traditional Fishermen Alliance (Antralamor) said fishermen in NTT saw their incomes slump by 70 percent after the incident. However, the class action did not represent all people affected by the oil spill, Arif said. "Those who filed the class action suit were only seaweed farmers, while other farmers didn't," he said. Therefore, the government has felt the need to file a separate lawsuit, which will be managed by the Environment and Forestry Ministry and the Attorney General's Office. "We can't file a lawsuit as a representative of individuals. We can sue [the company] on the grounds of environmental damage," Arif said. The planned lawsuit was needed as PTTEP had not been cooperative and had "not shown good faith" in handling the incident, he added. For instance, PTTEP refused to allocate funding as compensation from its corporate social responsibility funding, even though the company initially agreed to do so when it had discussions with a joint independent commission tasked with managing the case. "[The allocation of the funding] had been agreed as well as the time and the place in 2012. But the company didn't turn up. So PTTEP has not shown good faith," Arif said. Aside from the lawsuit, the government has also called on Australia to help find a solution to the oil spill. Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan told Fairfax Media that after seven years there was still no resolution for those affected by the worst oil spill in the history of Australia's offshore petroleum fields. "There is no solution so far and the victims are fishermen in the area. Australia should help out as well to solve this problem," he said as quoted by The Sydney Morning Herald. RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Suit Continued ----------------------------------------------------------------- Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona California Class Action), a status conference has since been continued until December 28, 2016 so the parties can attempt to obtain the necessary documents. On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards. If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii) any settlement will be properly apportioned between all named defendants and Radiant and DBA will not exclusively fund the settlement; (iv) wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the uncertainly with litigation and the difficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (v) Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement. Plaintiff admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities, and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which has since been continued until December 28, 2016 so the parties can attempt to obtain the necessary documents. DBA and Radiant are attempting to obtain the necessary records through the Tri-State and Accountabilities' Trustee. At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter. Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third party logistics company, providing multi-modal transportation and logistics services primarily in the United States and Canada. RICO PAN: "De Leon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA DE LEON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. RICO PAN, INC., a Florida corporation and RAFAEL PEREZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25154-RNS (S.D. Fla., December 12, 2016), alleges that Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rico Pan is a Colombian fast food joint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto E. Moran, Esq. ROBERTO E. MORAN, P.A. 2555 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 600 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 476-7100 Fax: (305) 476-7102 Email: rmoran@robertomoranlaw.com RIO TINTO: Weiner Trust Files Suit Over "Misleading" Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY P. WEINER SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RIO TINTO PLC, SAM WALSH, TOM ALBANESE, CHRISTOPHER JAMES LYNCH, and GUY ELLIOTT, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09572 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2016), alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. RIO TINTO PLC, a mining and metals company, finds, mines, and processes mineral resources. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Remand Two Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on November 30th, in Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., United States District Judge Joseph Laplante of the District of New Hampshire denied plaintiffs' motion to remand two related class action lawsuits based on allegations that defendants had caused a release of toxic chemicals from a manufacturing plant that contaminated nearby wells and water supplies. One lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of current owners of residential properties with private groundwater wells within two miles of the manufacturing site, and sought damages for the alleged diminished values of their properties. The other lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of current and former residents of such properties, and sought to recover the costs of medical monitoring. The defendants are the company that owns the plant and the individual plant manager. They removed the case to federal court under CAFA, and plaintiffs moved to remand, citing CAFA's local controversy exception. The local controversy exception requires district courts to decline CAFA jurisdiction where 1) more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed classes are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, 2) at least one defendant is a citizen of the forum state from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed class, and 3) the principal alleged injuries occurred in the forum state. For the exception to apply, there also must have been no other class actions filed asserting "the same or similar allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons" during the three year period before the class action in question was filed. Citing First Circuit precedent, the district court observed that the party seeking remand bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the local controversy exception applies. Plaintiffs were unable to satisfy their burden because five other putative class actions had been filed against the manufacturer in New York and Vermont within the prior three years. Plaintiffs argued that the cases did not involve "similar allegations" because they did not allege harm in New Hampshire, but the court disagreed, holding that the allegations did not need to be identical. The claims in each of the actions, the court found, arose from "effectively the same conduct by [the manufacturer], albeit conduct affecting different plaintiffs and different localities. This renders the factual allegations sufficiently similar to meet this requirement." This ruling disposed of the motion for remand, but the court, "for the sake of thoroughness," considered the remaining requirements of the local controversy exception. The classes in each of the two New Hampshire cases differed, and these differences affected the court's analysis of certain of the requirements. For example, it found it likely that the class of current property owners satisfied the requirement that more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of New Hampshire, but found that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of establishing this element for the medical monitoring class because it included former residents of the subject properties. The court reached similar conclusions with respect to the local defendant criteria. The local defendant is the plant manager, a citizen of New Hampshire. The claims against the manufacturer dated back to 2000, but the individual defendant did not become plant manager until 2012. The court had no difficulty finding that the plant manager's alleged conduct was a "substantial basis" for the property damage claims of current property owners, but not for the medical monitoring claims of former residents who moved away before he became plant manager. For the same reasons, the court found that the property damage class sought "significant relief" from both defendants, but that plaintiffs had not established that the medical monitoring class also sought significant relief from him because the class period might have begun before he became plant manager. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the argument that the "significant relief" requirement depends on a defendant's ability to pay. Pointing out that courts are split on that issue, the district judge concluded that the statute unambiguously focuses on whether significant relief is sought from the local defendant, not on whether the defendant has the capacity to satisfy a judgment. SID'S SEALANTS: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Holmes On behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Sid's Sealants, LLC, Sid Arthur Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00821-slc (W.D. Wis., December 12, 2016), seeks redress for Sid's Sealant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiff overtime pay, and failure to count some of their work time as hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sid's Sealants, LLC -- http://sidssealants.com/-- provides caulking, waterproofing, spray foam and sealant experts in commercial, industrial and residential building waterproofing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. Jill Hartley, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-271-4500 Fax: 414/271-6308 SIRIUS XM: Settlement May Solidify Position in Digital Music ------------------------------------------------------------ Mitch Stoltz, writing for Electronic Frontier Foundation, reports that Sirius XM Satellite Radio's recent settlement with ex-members of the 60s rock group The Turtles over royalty payments for old recordings has the potential to solidify the dominant position of big music services like Sirius XM, at the expense of new music services, independent and Web-based radio stations, and the listening public. If approved by the court, the settlement would give Sirius XM permission to stream a vast catalogue of music recordings made before 1972 while other music services and radio stations remain at legal risk. The litigation campaign by Flo & Eddie, Inc., a company made up of former members of the 1960's band the Turtles, started three years ago with class action lawsuits in California, New York, and Florida. While most creative work in the U.S. is governed by the federal Copyright Act, sound recordings made before February 15, 1972 are left to state laws. And those state laws, created in a pre-digital era, were silent about whether they included a "public performance" right -- i.e., whether the copyright holder can demand royalties when their songs are played on the radio, or even keep them off of the radio altogether. In general, copyrights on sound recordings in the U.S. don't come with a public performance right. That's why AM and FM radio stations have never paid or sought permission from artists and record labels. There's a limited right that covers "digital audio transmissions" such as Internet and satellite radio, but even that right doesn't allow a copyright holder to keep her music off the air. A government body, the Copyright Royalty Board, sets the rules and rates for Web and satellite radio. Pre-1972 recordings fall into a different category, governed by a patchwork of state laws and court decisions. The class action suits by Flo & Eddie claimed that Sirius XM and Pandora, two of the largest digital music services, had to pay royalties for every play of a pre-1972 recording. EFF has been involved in these suits at every level, filing amicus briefs to explain some of the pitfalls that could come from creating new state copyright law rights. Most recently, EFF filed a brief with the Florida Supreme Court, aided by copyright and appellate specialist Dineen P. Wasylik. Its brief argues that the purpose of copyright law is to create an incentive for artistic creation. In the words of the U.S. Constitution, its purpose is to "Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Since state law only applies to recordings that are over 45 years old, creating new rights in those recordings wouldn't encourage new recordings, which are governed by federal law alone. EFF's brief also pointed out a potential pitfall that would come from creating broad new rights through a court case. Most expansions of copyright over the past century have come from Congress (and occasionally from state legislatures). Those expansions are almost always coupled with careful limitations, like the fair use doctrine, and the statutory license that lets Internet radio stations stream a wide variety of music with minimal transaction costs. Courts, by contrast, can only rule on the facts in front of them, which in these cases involve large, established music services. Creating a new right to control performances through a court case means creating a right without specifying what its limitations will be. And a settlement between Sirius XM and recording artists is likely to be a deal that puts Sirius XM in a privileged position, likely paying lower royalty rates than a smaller competitor could negotiate, and on more favorable terms. As it turns out, the parties to these lawsuits didn't even wait to find out whether California, New York, and Florida law recognize an exclusive right of public performance. On the same day that EFF submitted its brief in Florida, Flo & Eddie and Sirius XM filed a settlement proposal with the federal court in California. Under that proposal, Sirius XM will pay pre-1972 copyright holders a lump sum of $25 to $40 million, and an ongoing royalty of up to 5.5% of revenues. The basic question of whether a public performance right exists at all remains unanswered, and appeals in all three states are continuing. The landscape is now more uncertain for music services and radio stations who aren't called Sirius XM. The different states could still reach different answers to the question of whether those services must pay royalties for the performance of pre-1972 recordings (lower courts have already come down differently in each state, though the decisions are still up on appeal). If any of them decide that state law covers those performances, music services and radio stations will have to begin the complex process of negotiating terms and royalties -- and that process will likely involve more expensive litigation. Sirius XM, meanwhile, has already secured permission to play any pre-1972 recording on its service at predictable royalty rates for years to come, giving it a major advantage over new music services. Another serious problem looms: a lower court ruling in the California case implies that state copyright law contains none of the exceptions and limitations of federal law, including fair use. As EFF explained in an earlier brief, fair use is required by the U.S. Constitution, in order to make copyright law compatible with the First Amendment. This needs fixing, but if Flo & Eddie prevail in their appeals, the fix may not come quickly. One solution to this mess is for the various courts to rule that no state-law right of public performance exists -- in other words, to confirm the assumptions that the entire music industry has operated under for decades. Another is for Congress to follow the Copyright Office's recommendation from a 2011 report: place all sound recordings under federal law, regardless of when they were made. SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Considers All Natural Litigation to Be Closed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Company distributed the funds related to the class settlement in the All Natural litigation and considers that case to be closed. The Company said: "We have certain class action legal proceedings filed against us which allege that certain ingredients in some of our products that are labeled as "natural" and "all natural" are not natural. Although we believe that we had strong defenses against these claims, we reached a settlement agreement in the third quarter of 2015 in order to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation. We recognized $2.8 million of expense in settlements of certain litigation in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income in the first nine months of 2015. The settlement amount of $2.8 million is accrued in other payables and accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at the end of the third quarter of 2016." Subsequent to the end of the third quarter of 2016, the Company distributed the funds related to the class settlement and considers the case to be closed; however, a portion of the accrued administrative fees will be paid in the fourth quarter." Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the snack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, and distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items. The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private labels, and third party brands. SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Class Suit by IBOs in Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc., is defending itself against a putative class action lawsuit brought by independent business owners in 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 October 1, 2016. The Company said: "On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs filed a putative class action against Snyder's-Lance, Inc. and our distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc. in the Eastern District Court of Tennessee. The case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in Tennessee, and nationwide certification for the Federal law collective action. The plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors and should be considered employees." "We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against us. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit." Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the snack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, and distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items. The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private labels, and third party brands. SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Two Suits Over Diamond Foods Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc., is defending two lawsuits arising from its acquisition of Diamond Foods, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016. On October 27, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Diamond Foods, Inc. Diamond was a leading snack food company that possessed five brands including Kettle Brand(R) potato chips, KETTLE(R) Chips, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, Emerald(R) snack nuts, and Diamond of California(R) culinary nuts. The acquisition closed on Feb. 29, 2016, and, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Diamond became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Diamond stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names as defendants Diamond, the members of Diamond's board of directors, Snyder's-Lance, Shark Acquisition Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub I") and Shark Acquisition Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub II"). The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of Diamond's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Diamond's stockholders in connection with negotiating, entering into and approving the merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The complaint additionally alleges that Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought injunctive relief, including the enjoinment of the merger, certain other declaratory and equitable relief, damages, costs and fees. An amended complaint was filed on December 21, 2015. The amended complaint adds further allegations related to the merger process and disclosures contained in the Registration Statement on Form S- 4 filed by Snyder's-Lance on November 25, 2015. On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings requesting a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, which the Court denied on February 3, 2016. Plaintiff also filed a books and records demand case in North Carolina, which the plaintiff subsequently dismissed with prejudice. On January 19, 2016, another action was filed in the court of chancery in the state of Delaware similar to the above matter. On October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which modified some of plaintiff's allegations, including now expressly seeking a quasi-appraisal remedy or rescissory damages. The parties also have submitted to the court a proposed schedule for briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which would extend through March 2017. The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the snack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, and distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items. The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private labels, and third party brands. SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Settles "Sparks" Suit for $700,000 ------------------------------------------------------ Snyder's-Lance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that it entered into a tentative settlement pursuant to which it agreed to pay $0.7 million on a class wide basis in the lawsuit filed by Patricia Sparks against its subsidiary, Diamond Foods, Inc. Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond's violation of the California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act based on the same underlying violations. Diamond timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The parties attended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016. The Company said, "We accrued $8.3 million associated with this outstanding claim in the Diamond opening balance sheet as that represented our best estimate of the probable liability at that time. We determined such accrual by estimating the aggregate potential penalties that we believed it was probable could be assessed under the applicable California laws, which are strict liability penalties." "On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached a tentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7 million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum of understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. The settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement by the parties and approval by the court. As result of the memorandum of understanding, we have recorded a measurement period adjustment to reduce the opening Balance Sheet accrual and accordingly accounted for this settlement amount in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for the quarter ended October 1, 2016." Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the snack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, and distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items. The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private labels, and third party brands. SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice Term Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit initiated against Snyder's-Lance, Inc.'s subsidiary over the use of the term "evaporated cane juice" remains 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 October 1, 2016. A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks, LLC on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action accuses Late July Snacks, LLC of violating federal and state law by using the term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in the ingredients list on its products' labels. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges ECJ is not the common and usual name for the ingredient at issue and is misleading. The complaint attempts to state claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Late July Snacks, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim. On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels. On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance, on August 31, 2016. The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in the snack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, and distributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's products include sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and bread basket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items. The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, private labels, and third party brands. SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Rest Break ----------------------------------------------------------------- Genalyn Pascual Nicolas, Victoria Agusi-Damola, Febe Banayos Barangan, Julie Guarin Reyes, and Xerxes Velayo Reyes v. Solheim Lutheran Home, Inc. and Does 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. BC643735 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide rest breaks or compensate hourly employees in accordance with the provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate a residential facility for senior citizens providing residential care services, assisted living care services, memory care services, and skilled nursing care services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kasey Diba, Esq. Amir Alavi, Esq. FINNEGAN & DIBA, A LAW CORPORATION 3660 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 710 Los Angeles, CA 92656 Telephone: (213) 480-0292 Facsimile: (213) 480-0805 E-mail: kdiba@fdlegal.com aalavi@fdlegal.com SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Bush Fire Survivors Set to Get Payouts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Karvelas, writing for ABC, reports that compensation cheques will soon be arriving in the mail for some of the survivors of the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires. Two separate class actions were launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn against electricity provider SP AusNet and parts of the Victorian Government, following the bushfires in February 2009. Those cases were settled in 2014 and 2015. Lyn Gunter, former Mayor of Murrindindi and one of the class action claimants, speaks to RN Drive. STARWOOD HOTELS: Seeks More Time to Reply to "Dugas" Amended Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Dugas v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00014 (S.D. Cal.), Defendants HST GP San Diego, LLC, HST Lessee San Diego, LP, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. on Dec. 16 filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on Dec. 7. On Nov. 3, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and gave Plaintiff 20 days from the issuance of the Order to file a Second Amended Complaint. Failure to meet the 20-day deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order would have resulted to the dismissal of the case with prejudice. Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in November 2015, Starwood announced a malware intrusion had affected point of sale systems at various outlets within certain Legacy- Starwood branded hotels. This resulted in the potential compromise of credit card data and associated personal information. The affected credit card companies are evaluating whether and to what extent financial penalties should be imposed. A putative class action arising from the malware intrusion was filed against Starwood on January 5, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The named plaintiff, Paul Dugas, does not specify any damages sought, and a motion to dismiss the case is awaiting resolution by the Court. Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotels and timeshare properties in 120 countries and territories under 30 brand names at the end of the 2016 third quarter. STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Case Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of steel products remains pending. The Company said, "Although, a tentative settlement has been reached in the case, we have to date been involved, along with two other remaining non-settling defendant steel manufacturing companies, from an original group of eight, in a direct purchaser class action antitrust suit in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, under the caption of Standard Iron Works v Arcelor Mittal, et al." "Two other complaints, not yet settled, were brought on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period. We have a pending motion to dismiss in that case. "The complaints allege a conspiracy to limit output on the part of the defendants, in order to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States during a specified period between 2005 and 2007. The complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. "In September 2015, the Court denied class certification on the issue of antitrust impact and damages, but granted class certification on the limited issue of the alleged conspiracy. "In October 2016, we announced that we have entered into an agreement to settle the direct purchaser case for a payment of $4.6 million. Preliminary approval was granted by the court on November 3, 2016, and final approval by the Court is also expected to be forthcoming. "During the approval process, members of the class will be given an opportunity to opt-out of the class and retain their own individual rights. "Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, we cannot presently predict either the final outcome of the proposed settlement process, including whether there may be opt-outs from the settlement, or the outcome of the remaining indirect purchaser case." Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), together with its subsidiaries (the company), is one of the largest domestic steel producers and metals recyclers. The company has three reportable segments, consistent with how it manages the business: steel operations, metals recycling operations, and steel fabrication operations. SUNSHINE LANDSCAPERS: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Onofre Suarez, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sunshine Landscapers, LLC and Bobac Medalian, Case No. 9:16-cv-81982-WJZ (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a landscape services company in North Palm Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com TAMPA ELECTRIC: Appeal by Insurers in Suit vs. NMGC Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal filed by insurance carriers in the lawsuits arising from gas shortages in New Mexico was dismissed, according to Tampa Electric 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 2011, New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. experienced gas shortages due to weather-related interruptions of electric service, weather-related problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines and in gas fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC, and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high usage resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC causing involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to approximately 28,700 customers (residential and business). In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas utility service curtailed during the early-February system emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff purporting to represent a class of all "similarly situated New Mexico private businesses and enterprises." In September 2015, a settlement was reached with all the named plaintiff class representatives in both of the class actions. The settlements were on an individual basis and not a class basis. In addition to the two settled class actions described above, 18 insurance carriers have filed two subrogation lawsuits for monies paid to their insureds as a result of the curtailment of natural gas service in February 2011. In January 2016, the judge entered summary judgment in favor of NMGC and all of the subrogation lawsuits were dismissed. The insurance carriers subsequently filed a timely appeal of the summary judgment. In late May 2016, a settlement was reached with all the named plaintiffs in the subrogation lawsuits. A motion to dismiss the appeal was granted by the court on Aug. 2, 2016. The Company says the settlements were not material to the Company. Tampa Electric Company is the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy, Inc. TECO Energy is an electric and gas utility holding company with diversified activities. TAMPA ELECTRIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- Final hearing to consider approval of settlement to resolve lawsuits arising from merger with Emera Inc. is set for December 2016, according to Tampa Electric 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 1, 2016, TECO Energy Inc. and Emera Inc. completed the Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement entered into on Sept. 4, 2015. As a result of the Merger, the Merger Sub Company merged with and into TECO Energy with TECO Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Emera. Emera is a geographically diverse energy and services company headquartered in Nova Scotia, Canada Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securities following the announcement of the Emera transaction. Eleven suits were filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. They alleged that TECO Energy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement and sought to enjoin the Merger. Several of these suits alleged that one or more of TECO Energy, Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The securities class action lawsuits were consolidated per court order. Since the consolidation, two of the complaints were amended. One of those complaints has added a claim against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to disclose. The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court and has subsequently been voluntarily dismissed. The company also received two separate shareholder demand letters from purported shareholders of the company. Both of these letters demanded that the company maximize shareholder value and remove alleged conflicts of interest as well as eliminate allegedly preclusive deal protection devices. One of the letters also demanded that the company refrain from consummating the transaction with Emera. Both of these demand letters have subsequently been withdrawn. In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the various shareholder plaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of the pending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger. As a result of the Memorandum of Understanding, the company made additional disclosures related to the proposed Merger in a proxy supplement. In September 2016, a hearing was held to gain preliminary approval of a negotiated stipulation of settlement. After that hearing, the judge entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement and scheduling a final approval hearing for December 2016. There can be no assurance that the court will grant final approval of the settlement. However, while the outcome of such proceeding remains uncertain, management does not believe that its ultimate resolution will have a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Tampa Electric Company is the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy, Inc. TECO Energy is an electric and gas utility holding company with diversified activities. TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Medicaid Program Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- S.B., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 2016CV283573 (Ga. Super. Ct., December 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's submission of false certifications to various state Medicaid programs for the undocumented immigrant women who would be eligible for emergency Medicaid services when they gave birth. Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates a healthcare services company with its principal executive offices located at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas 75202. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond Jr., Esq. WEBB, KLASE &LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909)557-1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610)200-0580 E-mail: jsg@mccunewright.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Alleges Conspiracy Over Pravastatin --------------------------------------------------------------- Laborers International Union of North America Local 3 5 Health Care Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan, foe., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals USA; Inc., Apotex, Inc., Sandoz, Jnc., Lek Pharmaceuticals, d.d., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin, Ltd., Cadtla Healthcare, Ltd., Actavis HoldCo, U.S., Inc., and Zydus PharmaceutiG.ls (USA), Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06395-TON (E.D. Pa., December 12, 2016), alleges that Defendants are engaging in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic pravastatin sodium drug products. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. -- http://www.tevausa.com/-- is an international biopharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent W. Landau, Esq. Katie R. Beran, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 985-3270 Fax: (215) 985-3271 Email: blandau@hausfeld.com Email: kberan@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com Email: jkenney@hausfeld.com - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Daniel B. Rehns, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Ave, 14th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 213-8311 Fax: (212) 779-0028 Email: FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com DRehns@hrsclaw.com TRACFONE WIRELESS: City of Pickering to Take Part in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nodaway News Leader reports that the City of Pickering may receive money from a class action lawsuit filed in St. Louis against TracFone Wireless, Inc. to collect business license fees. The council agreed to pay the attorneys involved five percent of any money received. White Cloud engineering did not receive payment in October, so the November payment will be twice the normal amount of $350. A representative from Pickering Christian Church contacted City Clerk Milt Sovereign to say the church will no longer use the parsonage. The property's sewer pump has been pulled and put into reserve. Mid-America Road Builders, Platte City, submitted a $14,445 bid to remove tube and clean a ditch causing standing water. The bid also included 1,000 pounds of cold patch which the city uses to patch streets inbetween projects. Council members determined the bid was too high and asked Mayor Charles Smith to seek other bids. The council agreed to sell Jubal Smith the city's old dirt and cold patch mix for $100 as the cold patch deteriorates and must be replaced periodically. Storm Sirens, Inc., Norman, OK, contacted the city. The company sold the city two sirens in 2010. Sovereign will call the company about screens for the sirens to keep out debris. The council agreed to pay the city clerk's bond premium and make the annual payment on one of the sewer loans. The council will provide Christmas treats for North Nodaway Elementary students in Pickering. This yearly tradition will take place on the last day of school before Christmas break. TRUEBLUE INC: Settles Class Action for $5MM, Feb. 6 Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq., and David N. Anthony, Esq., of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Joseph v. TrueBlue, Inc., the named plaintiff brought a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action against the workforce staffing company for its alleged text messaging advertisements. TrueBlue recently agreed to a $5 million settlement to end the case. According to the amended class action complaint, TrueBlue sent text message "Job Alert" advertisements to Daniel Joseph and others. Because of the volume of text messages he was receiving, Joseph decided to stop the text messages and texted the word "Stop" to TrueBlue. Joseph received notice that "You have unsubscribed from [TrueBlue's] job alerts. You will receive no more messages." However, thereafter TrueBlue allegedly continued to send text messages to Mr. Joseph. The case was litigated for nearly two years before the parties reached a settlement. In September 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement. The agreement provides for a $5 million settlement fund for "all 1,948 individuals identified in [TrueBlue's] records that were sent a job alert text message after a request to unsubscribe to their cellular telephone from the same system that sent Plaintiff a job alert text message after his unsubscribe requests." TrueBlue also agreed to change its business practice to stop making or causing to be made automated calls and texts after stop requests. On November 21, Mr. Joseph filed a motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and a service award. Specifically, he seeks more than $1.6 million in attorneys' fees (or 33% of the common fund), over $14,000 in litigation expenses, and $10,000 as an incentive award. A final approval hearing is set for February 6, 2017. TUBEMOGUL: Faces "Theil" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Sale to Adobe ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Thiel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tubemogul, Inc., Brett Wilson, Ajay Chopra, Russell Fradin, Jack Lazar, Paul Levine, David Toth, Adode Systems Incorporated, and Tiger Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv- 07083 (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of all common stock holders of TubeMogul, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of TubeMogul common stock by Adobe Systems Incorporated, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Tubemogul, Inc. operates a software company for brand advertising with its principal executive offices located at 1250 53rd Street, Suite 2 Emeryville, California 94608. Adobe Systems Incorporated offers a line of products and services used by creative professionals, marketers, knowledge workers, application developers, enterprises and consumers for creating, managing, delivering, measuring, optimizing and engaging with compelling content and experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shirli Fabbri Weiss, Esq. David Priebe, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248 Telephone: (650)833-2000 Facsimile: (650)833-2001 E-mail: shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com david.priebe@dlapiper.com TUBEMOGUL INC: Faces "Yavuz" Sued Over Proposed Sale to Adobe ------------------------------------------------------------- Bahadir Yavuz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tubemogul, Inc., Brett Wilson, Ajay Chopra, Russell Fradin, Ashu Garg, Jack Lazar, Paul Levine, David Toth, Adobe Systems Incorporated and Tiger Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-06996-JD (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2016), is brought on behalf of all common stock holders of TubeMogul, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of TubeMogul common stock by Adobe Systems Incorporated, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Tubemogul, Inc. operates a software company for brand advertising with its principal executive offices located at 1250 53rd Street, Suite 2 Emeryville, California 94608. Adobe Systems Incorporated offers a line of products and services used by creative professionals, marketers, knowledge workers, application developers, enterprises and consumers for creating, managing, delivering, measuring, optimizing and engaging with compelling content and experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com TYAN INC: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- Ismael Cazares, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Tyan, Inc. d/b/a Security Specialists and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC643418 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements in writing, as required by California wage-and-hour laws. Tyan, Inc. owns and operates a security guard service company in San Fernando, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hugo E. Gamez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HUGO GAMEZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 442-0623 Facsimile: (310)693-2538 E-mail: Hugo@hgamezlaw.com - and - Andrew L. Treger, Esq. BAER TREGER LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310)226-7570 Facsimile: (310)226-7571 E-mail: reger@baertreger.com UBS SECURITIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Incentive Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Zoller and Alexander Beigelman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UBS Securities LLC, UBS Financial Services Inc., and UBS Americas Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 11277 (N.D. Ill., December 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for forfeiting terminated employees' incentive and deferred compensation. The Defendants provide financial and wealth management services to its clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda D. Friedman STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD. 303 W. Madison, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 431-0888 E-mail: Lfriedman@sfltd.com UNITED DEV'T: Judge Sends Class Action Back to Chancery Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider, reports that a Delaware federal judge has sent back to the Delaware Court of Chancery a proposed class and derivative action over an alleged $1 billion "Ponzi-like scheme" at Texas-based limited partnership United Development Funding III, finding that claims for fiduciary breaches, waste and unjust enrichment called for state, and not federal, review. The plaintiffs, co-trustees of the David C. Fannin Revocable Trust, initially filed suit in the Chancery Court in early July, asserting individual and derivative claims against UDF's brass and eight other companies for self-dealing and self-enrichment in a supposed scheme to misappropriate investor funds. However, the defendants successfully petitioned to have the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which gives district courts jurisdiction over putative class actions seeking more than $5 million in damages. But on Dec. 2, U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District of Delaware reversed course and ordered the litigation back to state court. The complaint, she said, met two narrow carve-outs within CAFA, known as the internal affairs doctrine and the securities exception. "Because plaintiffs' class action solely involves claims that fall within the internal affairs and securities exceptions to CAFA, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the instant action under CAFA," Judge Robinson wrote in a 10-page memorandum. In opposing the remand motion, Judge Robinson said, the defendants had given an "overly broad" reading to the 130-page complaint and interpreted the CAFA exceptions as far too narrow. Under the internal affairs doctrine, only one state has authority to regulate a company's dealings among its current officers, directors and shareholders. And while the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims may have raised the specter of fraud, they related "solely" to UDF's internal affairs of governance, Judge Robinson said. Claims for breach of contract also met the securities exception. Under that exception to the CAFA, state courts are given jurisdiction of claims related to rights and duties that are created pursuant to any security. In fact, Judge Robinson said, the limited partnership itself qualified as an investment contract, governed by a partnership agreement that defined the securities the plaintiffs received in exchange for their investments within the scope of the securities exception. "The partnership agreement expressly retains fiduciary duties and prohibits any contractual limitation or elimination of fiduciary duties; it is governed by and construed under Delaware law," Judge Robinson said. "As the court interprets the complaint, plaintiffs' claims pertain solely to the 'relationships inter se' of UDF III's general and limited partners, as those relationships are defined by Delaware corporate law and by the partnership agreement." The plaintiff investors are represented by Robert Kriner Jr. -- RobertKriner@chimicles.com -- A. Zachary Naylor -- ZN@chimicles.com -- Tiffany J. Cramer and Vera G. Belger -- VeraGerrity@Chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis. The defendants are represented by Steven L. Caponi of K&L Gates. The federal case was captioned Fannin v. UMTH Land Development. The cases, in the Court of Chancery, are captioned Fannin and Fannin as Co-Trustees v. UMTH Land Development. VAALCO ENERGY: Wins Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Butcher" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware approved a stipulation and order of dismissal in the stockholder lawsuit initiated by Daniel Butcher, VAALCO 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. On October 3, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal entered into by the parties in a stockholder class action lawsuit against the Company and all of its directors alleging that a previously terminated shareholder rights agreement, no longer in effect, and certain provisions of the former CEO's and former CFO's employment agreements securing change-in-control severance benefits were invalid under Delaware law, case number C.A. No. 12277-VCL, filed on April 29, 2016, in the Court. After the Company and its directors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, the Plaintiff Daniel Butcher agreed to dismiss the lawsuit as moot, and the Company agreed to settle Plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees, which it expects its insurer to pay, due to the anticipated costs of continuing to prosecute the motion to dismiss and defending the Plaintiff's fee application, as well as the litigation risk associated therewith. VAALCO Energy, Inc., is a Houston-based independent energy company principally engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas. As operator, the Company has production operations and conduct exploration activities in Gabon, West Africa. As non-operator, the Company participates in exploration and development activities in Equatorial Guinea, West Africa. In the United States, VAALCO is the operator of two unconventional wells in North Texas and holds undeveloped leasehold acreage in Montana. VALHI INC: Suits Arising From Use of Lead Pigments Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits against a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., alleging injury arising from use of lead pigments remain 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. NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead- based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the Lead Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party, and liability to the Company that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because: * NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases, * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL, and * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability. Accordingly, the Company says neither the Company nor NL have accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead- based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, the Company has determined that liability to the Company which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based. Valhi, Inc., is primarily a holding company. The Company operates through its wholly-owned and its majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc., Waste Control Specialists LLC, Tremont LLC, Basic Management, Inc. and The LandWell Company. VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Question AG's Role in Asphalt Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McElhinny, writing for Metro News, reports that lawmakers are asking whether state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey should more clearly be involved with a class action lawsuit claiming the asphalt for paving West Virginia's roads costs too much because of monopolistic practices. In October, the private firm Bailey & Glasser filed lawsuits on behalf of Charleston, Parkersburg, Beckley and Bluefield. A couple of days later, the state Department of Transportation jumped on board the lawsuit. The Attorney General's office has remained in the background. The issue came up before last month's election, and Mr. Morrisey said he couldn't discuss his office's role because the issue is a pending legal matter. "We're prohibited under the law from discussing that," Morrisey said at the time on MetroNews Talkline. "We care very deeply about these allegations. They're very serious." On Dec. 6, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office made a similar statement. "Our office and the Department of Transportation are engaged in cooperative discussions to handle this matter appropriately. There is no further comment at this time," Attorney General spokesman Curtis Johnson stated in an emailed response. Legislators on the Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on Department of Transportation Accountability asked Mike Folio, counsel for the DOT, to describe any participation by the Attorney General's office. "I've been having discussions with the AG, good positive discussions -- we're going to work together on this," Mr. Folio said. That answer wasn't specific enough for Delegate Marty Gearheart, chairman of the committee. He asked the Transportation Department to prepare a narrative for the next time the committee meets to describe how and why outside counsel was selected instead of going with lawyers from the Attorney General's office. Folio told legislators that the price of asphalt had been the subject of his attention since he started his job Jan. 1, 2015. In response to a question about why a small town like Bluefield would be ready to file a lawsuit before the State of West Virginia could get its own case together, Mr.Folio said the state was nearly ready by November but still needed to complete an analysis. "We weren't really late," Mr. Folio said. He was asked if the Attorney General's office turned down a role in leading the lawsuit. "I was not involved in those discussions," Mr. Folio responded. "I think Mr. Morrisey wants to be involved and he should be involved in this action. I've had discussions with him and his staff. He has an interest in protecting the taxpayers with this particular legal action." James Bailey, legislative counsel for the committee and no apparent relation to Bailey & Glasser, was asked similar questions about the Attorney General's participation. "I think it's an open question. I wouldn't want to ultimately state my opinion," Mr. Bailey said. "There may be something else that I'm not aware of. As far as I can see, the Attorney General should be representing." The government agencies involved in the lawsuit claim competition among asphalt suppliers has been suppressed to the point that they're paying 40 percent more to pave roads and patch potholes than they really should. "The possible damages, which the state would be owed, is also massive," Mr. Bailey told the committee. The lawsuits contend that the asphalt suppliers have engaged in predatory practices, undercutting and sometimes absorbing competitors. The lawsuit names West Virginia Paving as well as several asphalt providers that are alleged to be either openly or covertly related. "Combined, the defendants are an industry colossus," the lawsuits claim. Senator Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson and the upcoming Senate president, said he is frustrated that a Division of Transportation audit didn't bring more attention to the possibility of inflated asphalt prices. "Is there anything within these bids that raises a red flag?" Carmichael asked. State Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox said some aspects of paving contracts hadn't been adding up -- like a recent trend toward single bids. "We first became aware of it when had an analytical group take a look at the bids -- the number of single-bid contracts the department was getting," Mr. Mattox said. "As a result of our initial look at our bids, it raised a lot of red flags. Since that time, legal division has gathered information to prepare for this court case." Mr. Folio said the agency is paying increased attention to what's happening with paving bids in other surrounding markets. "We are looking region by region by region, measuring both cost and quality," he said. He said more and more related information is available digitally and could be subject to comparison. "You can see patterns of collusion or potential patterns of collusion. That's what we are doing from a programmatic standpoint." He said his own experience with potholes has led to personal frustration. "We are paying too much and we have inferior quality," Mr. Folio said. WALTER INVESTMENT: $24 Million Settlement Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a Florida court has entered an order finally approving the proposed settlement and dismissing a shareholder class action. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint named as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Ditech Financial, the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint sought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014. On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that, among other things, added certain allegations concerning the Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, the Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to the third amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegations and asserted various defenses. On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in substantial part on March 16, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement to fully resolve all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the action for a total payment of $24 million, which is inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and all other costs associated with the proposed settlement. On June 13, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and directing that potential members of the class be notified of the proposed settlement. On October 17, 2016, the court entered an order finally approving the proposed settlement and dismissing the action. In accordance with the settlement agreement, certain insurers of the Company have paid the full amount of the settlement into an escrow account. The defendants, including the Company, did not make any admission of liability or wrongdoing in connection with the settlement. Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the Company, is a mortgage banking firm focused primarily on servicing and originating residential loans, including reverse loans. WATTS WATER: Still Awaits OK of $14-Mil. Deal in Connector Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc., continues to await approval of $14 million settlement to resolve Connector Class Actions, 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 2, 2016. In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was temporarily withdrawn pending final approval of the settlement. After initial discovery was conducted the parties agreed to a mediation of all claims, which resulted in the below-referenced settlement. In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors (hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. was dismissed as a defendant. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 21, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted. The Company participated in joint mediation sessions of the Ponzo and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in both cases. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately $4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April 2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal Court and are pending with that Court. The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval and final court approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, the Company says there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements will be approved in their current form. If the settlements are not approved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in these cases. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2 million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31, 2015, subject to a separate final written settlement agreement that becomes effective if the class action settlement is approved. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is a supplier of products and solutions that manage and conserve the flow of fluids and energy into, through and out of buildings in the residential and commercial markets of the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia-Pacific. For over 140 years, the Company has designed and produced valve systems that safeguard and regulate water systems, energy efficient heating and hydronic systems, drainage systems and water filtration technology that helps conserve water. WELLS FARGO: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, "Wang" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Wang, Sat Narayan, Kaeran Sudmalis-Testi, Ihab Ghannam, And Blanca Saenz, as individuals and on behalf of all legal persons similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, First Data Corp., Vantiv, Inc., National Processing Company, International Payment Sevices, LLC d/b/a Elitepay Global, Brian Bentley, Andrew Bentley, Adam Bentley, Ironwood Financial, LLC d/b/a Ironwood Payments, Dewitt Lovelace, and John Lewis, Case No. 1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill. December 9, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of recording wireless telephone conversations without prior express consent of the called party. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a National Banking Association registered with the Comptroller of the Currency in Sioux Falls, South Dakota with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Fifth Third Bank is an Ohio banking corporation with its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. First Data Corp. is a payment technology Solutions Company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Vantiv, Inc. is a payment processing and technology provider headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. National Processing Company is a merchant account provider in the United States. International Payment Sevices, LLC is a Nevada corporation with its headquarters in Henderson Nevada and which operated a telemarketing call center in Naperville, Illinois The Plaintiff is represented by: Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2100 E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com jzolna@cherry-law.com WIND RIVER: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Keith Ward, William Clark, Kody Clark, and all others similarly situated v. Wind River Trucking, LLC d/b/a Wind River Oil Services and Todd Bradford, Case No. 1:16-cv-00418-DLH-CSM (D.N.D., December 12, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages and other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide trucking services associated with oil and gas production and exploration in the Williston Basin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq. Andrew J. Walker, Esq. THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC 3501 Allen Parkway Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 526-2222 Facsimile: (713) 526-2230 YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Securities Action Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al., On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its current and former directors. The complaint asserts both derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims, purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated stockholders, relating to the termination of, and severance payments made to, our former chief operating officer, Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff claims that certain current and former board members allegedly violated or acquiesced in the violation of the Company's Bylaws when Mr. de Castro was terminated without cause, and breached fiduciary duties by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the value of his severance. The plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The plaintiff seeks to have the full Board reassess the propriety of terminating Mr. de Castro without cause, potentially leading to disgorgement in favor of the Company of the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable accounting, monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied in part and granted in part on July 27, 2016. YAHOO! INC: UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund v. Marissa Mayer, et al. On January 27, 2016, a stockholder action captioned UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund v. Marissa Mayer, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, for violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, violations of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 124, and violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The amended complaint seeks to rescind Yahoo's employment contracts with the individual defendants because those defendants allegedly caused Yahoo to illegally operate as an unregistered investment company. The plaintiff seeks disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, rescission, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, the amended complaint asserts a direct claim against Yahoo for alleged violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 124(1), based on the allegation that Yahoo has illegally operated as an unregistered investment company. Pursuant to this claim, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing Yahoo from entering into any future contracts, including any contracts to sell its assets. On October 19, 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. YAHOO! INC: Faces "Stras" in N.D. Cal. Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Stras, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-06990-NC (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to adequately protect its users' sensitive personal information or itself from data breaches. Yahoo! Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a host of Internet websites and services, including web portal, search engine and email service, among others. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. Corban S. Rhodes, Esq. Ross M. Kamhi, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com crhodes@labaton.com rkamhi@labaton.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *