/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161229.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 260 Headlines ABM SECURITY: Calif. High Court Reinstates $89MM Judgment ADEPTUS HEALTH: Saxena-Filed Suit Pending in Texas Court ADT LLC: Edenborough Seeks to Certify Class of Calif. Customers ADVANCE CLEANING: "Yabron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ADVANCE STORES: Parties Seek Approval of "Whitehead" Suit Accord ADVOCATORS GROUP: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AIR CANADA: Airport Landlord Loses Bid to Dismiss Crash Suit ALDI INC: Class Certification of "Griffin" Action Sought ALEXION PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Sales Practices ALLERGAN PLC: Two Women Appointed Antitrust MDL Co-Lead Counsel ALLY FINANCIAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action ALPHA AND OMEGA: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Webb" Suit APPLE INC: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Case Over Breaks AR RESOURCES: Wins Final Approval of "Kielbasinski" Suit Accord ASTRAZENECA PLC: Retailers Seek Rehearing of Nexium Class Action AUDI OF AMERICA: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action BANDAS LAW: Founder Says Racketeering Class Action Frivolous BELLAMY'S: Faces Class Action Over Stock Price Drop BOURNE LEISURE: Hill Dickinson Wins Defense in Norovirus Suit BSN MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in RJF Chiropractic Suit CALIFORNIA: CDOT Violates Homeless People's Rights, Suit Says CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Kautsman" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington CEMPRA INC: Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Due Jan. 3 CENTENE CORPORATION: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline CHEMTALL INC: Gets $6MM From Workers' Class Action Settlement COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Sued Over Medical Repayment Plan Late Fees CONCERTED CARE: To Close Cordillera Lodge Despite Class Action COOK COUNTY, IL: Status Hearing in "Rogers" Suit Reset to Jan. 6 CUBA: Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism to Receive Payouts DELTA AIR: Non-Exempt Workers Class Certified in "Lopez" Suit EAGLE ROAD: "Adams" Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma FORSTER GARBUS: Feliciano Seeks Approval of Consumers Class Deal GILA LLC: Faces "Newsom" Suit in S.D. California GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class HAMILTON COUNTY: Federal Class Suit Filed Over Woodmore Bus Crash HARTFORD FIRE: Certification of Analysts Class Sought in "Allen" IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Hearing in "Krupp" Suit Set for January 3 JAY PEAK: Ex-CEO Stenger Denies Class Action Claims JOHNSON & BELL: First US Firm Named in Data Security Class Action JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wants Judge to Weigh Financiers' Roles in MDL KROGER CO: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in N.D. Alabama LA TAN: $1.5MM Fingerprint Scan Class Action Settlement Okayed LANNETT COMPANY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit LEASE FINANCE: Class Certification Sought in Ha Thi Le Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ill. Court Tosses Flood Insurance Class Action LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed MDL 2752: "Finnegan" Suit v. Yahoo! Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Wage Payment Class Action MONAKER GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Zaklit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses NCAA: Alston Case Moving Towards Settlement NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Lean Cuisine Preservatives OPUS BANK: Kessler Topaz-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending OPUS BANK: Lundin-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending PATTERN ENERGY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit PENNSYLVANIA: High Court Guidance Sought in Juvenile Convictions PILOT FLYING J: Jimmy Haslam Deposed in Fuel Rebate Class Action RCS RECOVERY: Faces "Matos" Suit in M.D. Florida REMINGTON ARMS: Connecticut Supreme Court to Hear Sandy Hook Case ROTI RESTAURANTS: Prints Too Many CC Digits on Receipts, Suit Says SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Gilligan" Suit in S.D.N.Y. SANDERSON FARMS: Khang Law Firm's Securities Suit Remains Pending SANOFI: Faces Class Action Over Depakine-Related Birth Defects SETERUS INC: Ciolino Seeks Certification of Borrowers Classes SI WIRELESS: Tennessee Woman Sues Over Unwanted Auto Texts SILV COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Strike Kimber's Class Claims Denied SOLARCITY CORP: Lucero Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses ST. LOUIS RAMS: McAllister Seeks to Certify FANS Class & Subclass STAAR SURGICAL: Bid to Certify in "Todd" Suit Under Submission STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify "Yockey" Suit Class SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Jan. 3 Lead Plaintiff Date in Khang-Filed Suit SYNGENTA: June 2017 Trial Scheduled in GMO Corn Class Action SYNGENTA AG: "Stracener" Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas SYNGENTA AG: Faces Triple K Suit in South Dakota District Court TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Action Among Ousted Director's Options TRANSCARE CORP: Eisenstadt vs. Patriarch Goes to Bankruptcy Court UBER TECH: Sued for Double Charging in "Instant Pay" Feature UGU: Local Families Mull Class Action Over Water Debacle VALVE CORP: "G.G." Suit Moved from King County Court to W.D. Wash VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Faces "Polizois" Suit in E.D. New York WAWA INC: Pfeifer Wants to Certify Class of Plan Participants WCI COMMUNITIES: February 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WELLS FARGO: General Counsel Delays Retirement Amid Scandal * 5th Cir. Grants Expedited Hearing in DOL's OT Rule Litigation * AARP Supports DOL Fiduciary Rule's Class Action Provision * Bank Biometric Authentication May Spark Consumer Class Action * CFPB Sued for Not Releasing Arbitration Rulemaking Records * Connecticut Supreme Court May Re-Invent Design Defect Law * France Introduces Class Action for Privacy-Related Claims ********* ABM SECURITY: Calif. High Court Reinstates $89MM Judgment --------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of California overturned an appellate court ruling in the landmark case of Augustus v. ABM Security Services, ending an eleven-year battle and upholding the trial court decision that "on-duty" rest breaks are in violation of California wage and hour laws. The court reinstated the trial court's award of $89.7 million in wages, interest and penalties to a class of approximately 15,000 former and present ABM security guards. Lead counsel for the class were Drew Pomerance -- dep@rpnalaw.com -- and Michael Adreani -- mba@rpnalaw.com-- of Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP (RPNA). "This precedential decision clarifies and sets forth the standard for all California employers to easily follow: that employees need to be relieved of all duties during their rest break," explains Adreani. The decision originates from RPNA's trial court victory in 2012 on behalf of a certified class of security guards who were denied off duty rest breaks in violation of California law. ABM Securities previously acknowledged that all of its security guards were required to remain on call during their so-called breaks, which the court found to be illegal. The trial court held that the guards remained "under ABM's control" during their breaks by having to carry and monitor communication radios to respond to emergencies and other incidents and, thus, were not completely relieved of all duty during their breaks as required by California law. The win was a victory for employees throughout California, as well as for those businesses that lawfully provide off-duty breaks. The trial court decision was reversed when the court of appeal ruled in favor of ABM Securities in 2014, stating that workers can receive lawful rest breaks even if they are required to perform some of their regular duties. Rather than following the "subject to control" definition of "work" long used in California, the court of appeal based its ruling on a dual definition of the term which had never previously been utilized under California law. After granting review of the appellate court's decision, the California Supreme Court has now ended the controversy over employee rest breaks which has been the focus of an eleven-year legal battle. "We are very grateful the Supreme Court agreed with what we have believed the law to be and have fought to clarify for the last 11 years," says Pomerance. "We expect there will now be less litigation over the issue of rest breaks because employees and employers alike will understand the rights and obligations each have under the law." Adreani adds that the decision is an important reminder for all employers to revisit and ensure their policies are in line with the law. For a copy of the decision, please contact Straightline Communications at -- ohanlon@straightlinecomm.com -- Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP (RPNA) is a Los Angeles- based law firm providing expert legal counsel and representation to the California business community. Established in 1995, the firm offers a broad range of legal services in all facets of civil litigation, with its primary focus on litigation, legislation and policymaking issues involving insurance and business related concerns. ADEPTUS HEALTH: Saxena-Filed Suit Pending in Texas Court -------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit that is now pending in the Tyler Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Adeptus Health Inc. and certain of the Company's executive officers and/or directors and underwriters. The deadline to move for lead plaintiff appointment remains December 27, 2016. This class action is filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common shares of the Company during the period between June 25, 2014 and November 1, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period). The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, the class action complaint is also filed on behalf of investors who purchased Adeptus Health's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering of its common stock (the "IPO") on or about June 25, 2014 and the Company's secondary public offerings on or about May 5, 2015, July 29, 2015, and June 2, 2016 (together with the IPO, the "Offerings"). The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Adeptus Health is one of the largest operators of independent freestanding emergency rooms in the United States and has a large network of partnerships with certain healthcare systems. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Adeptus Health was engaged in the widespread overbilling of patients, including low-acuity patients; (ii) Adeptus Health's billing practices were causing decreases in patient volume and would subject it to decreased revenues; (iii) the Company's billing practices exposed it to major financial, reputational, legal and regulatory risks; (iv) the Company's financial statements were not compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (v) as a result, the Company's statements were false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Adeptus Health common stock between June 25, 2014 and November 1, 2016, inclusive, and/or pursuant to one of the Company's public offerings during the Class Period, you may contact Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests. If you purchased Adeptus Health common stock during the expanded Class Period of June 25, 2014 through November 1, 2016, and/or pursuant to one of the Company's Offerings during the Class Period, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than December 27, 2016. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White's action was refiled in the Tyler Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas because the first-filed related action against Adeptus Health is pending in that Division. Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. ADT LLC: Edenborough Seeks to Certify Class of Calif. Customers --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Edenborough moves the Court to certify each cause of action in his first amended complaint filed in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL EDENBOROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-02233- JST (N.D. Cal.), for class treatment on behalf of this class: All residential customers in California who paid for an ADT wireless home security system that ADT installed or caused to be installed at any time from March 18, 2012 through August 15, 2016. Excluded are: (1) the current and former employees, officers and directors of ADT and its agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which they or their parents have a controlling interest; (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and his immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. Mr. Edenborough further moves for an order appointing himself as representative for the class; appointing Chavez & Gertler LLP and attorney Mark A. Chavez, Esq., as class counsel; and setting further proceedings regarding the notice to be given to the class. The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S5EQNsmh The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Nance F. Becker, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com Nance@chavezgertler.com - and - Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com afriedman@bffb.com - and - Tom Zimmerman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312)440-0020 E-mail: Tom@attorneyzim.com ADVANCE CLEANING: "Yabron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis M. Yabron, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Advance Cleaning Group, Inc. and Eddy Montiel, Case No. 1:16-cv- 25208-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Advance Cleaning Group, Inc. provides maintenance and cleaning services to companies that provide hotel/hospitality services The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ADVANCE STORES: Parties Seek Approval of "Whitehead" Suit Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit titled JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.), jointly move for an order initially approving their settlement agreement and setting a fairness hearing. More particularly, the Parties seek an order: (1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement as within the range of fair, adequate, and reasonable; (2) provisionally certifying, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and solely for purposes of the settlement, a settlement class consisting of all current and former ASC employees whose PII was disclosed as a result of the phishing attack ASC suffered on March 7, 2016 (the "Settlement Class"); (3) approving the Notice Program set forth in the Settlement Agreement and approving the form and content of the Notice; (4) staying all proceedings in this Action pending Final Approval of the Settlement and staying and/or enjoining, pending Final Approval of the Settlement, any actions brought by Settlement Class Members concerning a Released Claim; (5) amending the Complaint to include Janie Stapleton as a named Plaintiff; (6) adding Janie Stapleton as a named Plaintiff and amending the caption accordingly; (7) conditionally designating Jordan Whitehead and Janie Stapleton as the Class Representatives for the sole purpose of settlement proceedings, and their counsel Jason Melton and Jay P. Lechner as Class Counsel; (8) appointing Dahl Administration as Settlement Administrator and directing that within 60 days after the date on which an Order is entered preliminarily approving the settlement, the Settlement Administrator shall at ASC's expense cause a copy of the Notice to be mailed by United States mail, postage pre-paid, to all members of the Settlement Class; (9) approving the procedures set forth in Section VII of the Settlement Agreement for Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or to object to the Settlement; and (10) scheduling a Final Approval hearing for a time and date mutually convenient for the Court, Class Counsel, and counsel for ASC, at which the Court will conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the Settlement, determine whether it was made in good faith and should be finally approved, and determine whether to approve Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and for Service Awards. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fF7fHDQW The Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822-1111 Facsimile: (727) 898-2001 E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com shelley@theFLlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Emmet J. Schwartzman, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. P.O. Box 019101 Miami, FL 33131-9101 Telephone: (305) 530-0050 Facsimile: (305) 530-0055 E-mail: ESchwartzman@carltonfields.com - and - Michael B. Miller, Esq. Robert J. Baehr, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-9601 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 Facsimile: (212) 468-7900 E-mail: Mbmiller@mofo.com RBaehr@mofo.com ADVOCATORS GROUP: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keywee Owens, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Advocators Group, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv- 02149-ACC-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Advocators Group, LLC operates a social security disability advocacy company in Longwood, Seminoles County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Saba, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com AIR CANADA: Airport Landlord Loses Bid to Dismiss Crash Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that Transport Canada has failed in its bid to be excluded from a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of passengers aboard an Air Canada jet that crashed at the Halifax airport during a snowstorm last year. Federal lawyers had argued the department could not be sued because it did not owe a duty of care to the passengers aboard Flight 624. However, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Denise Boudreau decided on Dec. 13 that even though Transport Canada did not owe a duty of care to the flying public, it had to be included in the lawsuit because as landlord for the airport, it could be held responsible for its navigation systems and other equipment. The Airbus 320 hit the ground about 200 metres short of Runway 05 shortly after midnight on March 29, 2015, as it approached Halifax Stanfield International Airport in gusty winds and heavy snowfall. The twin-engine plane bounced into the air and crashed near the runway threshold before careening along the tarmac for another 570 metres. An engine and the plane's landing gear were torn from the airframe amid a shower of sparks and leaking fuel, but there was no fire and the fuselage remained largely intact. More than two dozen people were injured in the crash, and virtually all of the 133 passengers had to spend about 50 minutes on the tarmac, huddled against a blizzard, before they were taken to an unheated hangar, the lawsuit alleges. The other defendants in the case had earlier confirmed they would not oppose the certification of the class action. They include Air Canada, the Halifax International Airport Authority, Nav Canada and Airbus SAS, the French company that built the jet. Lawyer Ray Wagner said all of the passengers aboard Flight 624 will be sent letters asking if they want to opt out as a plaintiff, which would allow them to pursue their own legal action. The deadline for opting out is March 24. In a statement of claim, three passengers have come forward to represent the class of plaintiffs. In the claim, Kathleen Carroll-Byrne of Halifax said she continues to suffer from anxiety, a loss of concentration and a fear of flying. Halifax resident Asher Hodara said he suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and dental damage. Malanga Georges Libboy of Church Point, N.S., said the crash has left him with profound psychological stress and pain in his knee, neck and mouth. None of the allegations in the class action has been proven in court. Among other things, the plaintiffs allege the Halifax International Airport Authority is liable because it failed to properly clear Runway 05 and did not replace an older-style navigation system with a more advanced instrument landing (ILS) system. Their statement of claim says Air Canada was negligent because the airline did not provide adequate training for its flight crew, particularly when it came to landing in harsh weather. As for Transport Canada, the lawsuit alleges the department was negligent by inadequately monitoring the airport's compliance with safety requirements, and choosing not to ensure that the airport had an adequate emergency response plan. ALDI INC: Class Certification of "Griffin" Action Sought -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order conditionally certifying the action styled ANTHONY GRIFFIN, MARK MCINDOO, and SUSAN DETOMASO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ALDI, INC., DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 5:16-cv- 00354-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), as a collective action, directing that persons similarly situated to the Plaintiffs be given notice of the pendency of the action and an opportunity file written consents to join the action as party plaintiffs, and directing production of the names and addresses of potential plaintiffs on an expedited basis. The putative class action lawsuit is brought pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PH6MUzaZ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI 7207 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 451-3810 Facsimile: (315) 451-5585 E-mail: fsg@oharalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Noah A. Finkel, Esq. Cheryl A. Luce, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com cluce@seyfarth.com - and - Louisa Johnson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: lojohnson@seyfarth.com - and - Howard M. Wexler, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-5500 Facsimile: (212) 218-5526 E-mail: hwexler@seyfarth.com ALEXION PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Sales Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Singer, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors as it says it's investigating "inconsistent" sales practices of a key drug. The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York accuses Alexion, Connecticut's most successful biotech startup, of making false or misleading statements and failing to disclose that it used "improper sales practices" for Soliris, which treats a rare blood disease. The lawsuit also says the pharmaceutical company's revenue from Soliris sales were "unlikely to be sustainable." Several law firms have posted online notices seeking potential clients in the class-action lawsuit or competing legal actions. "Alexion and each of the named individual defendants dispute the allegations and will vigorously defend itself," the company said in an emailed statement. Chief Executive Officer David Hallal "resigned for personal reasons," the company announced on Dec. 12 and Chief Financial Officer Vikas Sinha left to seek other opportunities. The lawsuit was filed by a shareholder who purchased Alexion shares for $177 a share. Named in the lawsuit are Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Mr. Hallal, Mr. Sinha and former CEO and founder Leonard Bell. Alexion's failure to file a quarterly report within days of its third-quarter earnings release in October caused investors "serious harm," the lawsuit says. The share price fell sharply shortly after Alexion's announcement Nov. 9. The company has not yet filed its third-quarter results with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and announced on Dec. 12 that it expected to have that data ready by later this month or January. Alexandra D. Lahav, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, called the legal action a standard securities lawsuit that is "very, very common." A month ago, the company announced it was investigating claims that Soliris' sales had been compromised by "sales practices that were inconsistent with Company policies and procedures." The investigation began because of a former employee's whistle- blowing. Alexion, which develops and buys drugs from other small biotechs that treat ultra-rare, life-threatening diseases, posted more than $3 billion in sales last year. Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities from February 10, 2014 through November 9, 2016, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Alexion investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Alexion class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-991.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Alexion employed improper sales practices with respect to Soliris; (2) consequently, Alexion's revenues from Soliris sales were unlikely to be sustainable; and (3) as a result, Alexion's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ALLERGAN PLC: Two Women Appointed Antitrust MDL Co-Lead Counsel --------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that in an "extremely rare" move, one that was hailed as an advance for diversity, two women have been tapped to lead a federal multidistrict antitrust litigation. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered an order appointing Roberta Liebenberg of Fine, Kaplan and Black and Dianne M. Nast of Nast Law as co-lead counsels in In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation. The appointment comes a few months after Jan P. Levine -- levinej@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton was appointed as lead counsel for the defense. Dana Alvare, a research fellow at the Sheller Center, who has been studying the appointment of women and diverse attorneys on steering committees and as lead counsels, said she has not seen two women appointed as lead counsel on an MDL in her research, which looks at appointments over the past five years. "It's extremely rare for there to be a female-only lead, either joint or single," Ms. Alvare said. "It is a really big deal, and Dianne Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- and Bobbi Liebenberg are significantly qualified in that field." In a similarly unusual move, Judge Rufe's order said that the leadership should encourage younger attorneys to participate. "The court expects that the leadership will provide opportunities for attorneys not named to the plaintiff's steering committee, particularly less-senior attorneys, to participate meaningfully and efficiently in the MDL, including through participation in any committees within the plaintiff's steering committee and in determining which counsel will argue any motions before the court," Judge Rufe said. Ms. Liebenberg said she felt that language was an important step toward ensuring that younger attorneys, many of whom are women and minority lawyers, will get the opportunities that will ultimately allow them to one day be appointed as lead counsel in nationwide litigations. Ms. Liebenberg, noting that five women were also appointed to the MDL's 12-attorney steering committee, said it was exciting that women will lead the MDL in front of a female judge. Judge Rufe "is someone who's committed to ensuring that the leadership of cases reflects the diversity of the juries that the case will be presented in front of and representative of the class members, who are made up of men and women," Ms. Liebenberg said. Ms. Liebenberg, who focuses her practice on class actions, antitrust and complex commercial litigation, spearheaded a study that found women comprise a disproportionately low percentage of lead trial attorney posts, and repeat appointments, regardless of gender, can stifle the new generation of leadership as a whole. Ms. Nast has been working on MDL panels since the 1980s. Earlier this year, she told The Legal that, although for many years there were no women serving on leadership committees, she noticed that diversifying the makeup of MDL leadership has become a priority with many judges lately. Ms. Nast said in an email that Judge Rufe's order also establishes an "innovative structure" that allows a single plaintiffs' steering committee to oversee three separate groups of litigants, which will allow the attorneys to subdivide if the requirements of the three groups diverge. "Many of this group have worked together in the past, and there is a great deal of respect for one another and their work ethic," Ms. Nast said. Ms. Alvare said there have been a handful of similar encouragements by judges aimed at encouraging younger attorneys to argue motions, or have more direct involvement in MDLs. Judge Rufe's order, she said, may go a long way toward solidifying that trend. "The repeat players are overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly of a certain age, so it helps diversity across the board," Ms. Alvare said. The defendants in the case are Allergan plc, Impax Laboratories, Inc., The Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan, Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. ALLY FINANCIAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Inc. and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of purchasers of Ally securities pursuant and/or traceable to the company's April 11, 2014 Initial Public Offering. Such investors are advised to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ally. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Ally Financial Inc., previously known as GMAC Inc. is an American bank holding company that provides financial products and services mainly to automotive dealers and their retail customers. In June of 2016, several news sources reported that car loans should be considered high risk for auto lenders because of the problematic default rates from increased subprime lending. As a response to this alarming report, Ally stated its intent to begin "dialing back on lending to consumers at the lower end of the subprime credit score spectrum." Following this news, Ally stock dropped over 22% per share on June 14, 2016. Then on July 28, 2016, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Ally, along with some of the largest auto lenders, had reported on second quarter earnings calls that used car prices are at risk of dropping. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Ally made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the severity of growing subprime auto loan delinquency rates; (2) deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of its subprime auto loans; and (3) the aggressive tactics that were used with low-income debtors to raise about $2.375 billion in its April 2014 IPO. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/allyor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ally you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. ALPHA AND OMEGA: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Webb" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. R. Gary Klausner grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class action and conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the lawsuit titled WEBB v. ALPHA AND OMEGA SERVICES INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-01609-RGK-KK (C.D. Cal.). On June 13, 2016, Michael Webb filed a class action in state court against Alpha and Omega Services, Inc. ("A&O") and Frank Keller. The Complaint alleged labor law violations against his employer on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees. On July 21, 2016, the Defendants removed the action to federal court. According to civil minutes filed on the case docket, the Court held that it: (1) grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the claims of Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation and Unfair Business Practices; (2) grants Plaintiff's Motion to certify a FLSA collective action for the limited purpose of providing notice to potential collective members; (3) denies Plaintiff's Motion to approve and authorize the mailing of the proposed Notice and Consent forms. Plaintiff is ordered to file a Request for Approval of Amended Notice and Consent Forms, with amendments attached, within seven days of this Order. Plaintiff shall include with his filing, a Proposed Order Granting Approval of Notice and Forms and Authorizing Mailing of the Notice; and (4) on condition that the Court approves and authorizes the mailing of Plaintiff's Amended Notice and Consent Forms, grants Plaintiff's Motion to compel A&O to produce the names and last known addresses of all potential opt-in collective members. A&O is ordered to provide Plaintiff with such information within SEVEN DAYS of the Court's approval and authorization. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PvSTsE6k APPLE INC: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Case Over Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that a California court has ruled in favor of Apple Store workers who accused the iPhone giant of trampling over their employment rights. It is a bittersweet victory. The trial jury on Dec. 12 awarded store staff $2m after Apple was found to have illegally denied them meal and rest breaks, and was late giving departing workers their final paychecks. The class-action complaint was first filed in 2011 in the California State Court in San Diego by four former employees. It was later expanded to a class of more than 21,000 current and former workers who held jobs at the Apple Store as far back as 2007. Apple had been accused of a half-dozen violations of state labor laws, including California laws forbidding the failure to provide meal and rest breaks, full pay upon termination, and unfair business practices. The complaint also makes note of Apple's notorious culture of secrecy, and how it has extended from Cupertino into the global chain of retail outlets, where employees are allegedly forbidden from discussing any information not available on Apple's website. The lawsuit -- brought by Brandon Felczer, Ryan Goldman, Ramsey Hawkins, and Joseph Lane Carco -- alleged that Apple Store bosses forbid all employees from discussing their working conditions and voicing complaints about possible violations. "The restriction from discussing anything about Apple or its policies is reinforced on Apple's labor policies themselves," the complaint, filed in the county of San Diego, reads. "The majority, if not all, of Apple's employment policies make it clear that Plaintiffs aren't allowed to discuss Apple's working conditions." While Apple profits have been slipping of late, the $2m payout would amount to little more than a rounding error on Apple's $9bn bottom line, and a maximum of $95 per worker. Chalk this one up as a win for Apple. AR RESOURCES: Wins Final Approval of "Kielbasinski" Suit Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kim R. Gibson granted final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff, individually, and as representative of the class, and the Defendant in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS KIELBASINSKI; an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A.R. RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa.). This Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom A.R. Resources, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with its attempt to collect a debt, which written communications included the stated that a $5.00 convenience fee would be added to all credit transactions, and which resulted in the consumer being charged such a fee, during a period beginning March 13, 2014, and ending October 31, 2015. Excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons, who timely and validly requested exclusion. The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, ARR will make these payments: (a) ARR will create these two class settlement funds: Actual Damage Fund. ARR will create an Actual Damage Fund of $19,370. Each Class Member who do not exclude themselves and who timely returns a claim form will be entitled to receive a payment from the Actual Damage Fund in an amount equal to 100% of the "convenience fees" they paid ARR. Statutory Damage Fund. ARR will also create a Statutory Damage Fund of $5,000, which will be distributed on a pro rata basis to each Claimant. Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check. Any portion of the Class Recovery that remains unclaimed after the 60-day void date on the Claimants' checks will be distributed as a cy pres award to Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, Inc.; (b) ARR will pay the Plaintiff $2,000; and (c) ARR will pay Class Counsel $30,000 for their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from ARR or the Class Members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MfKZ3JXr ASTRAZENECA PLC: Retailers Seek Rehearing of Nexium Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Kroh and Brian Amaral, writing for Law360, report that retailers and indirect purchasers of heartburn medication Nexium on Dec. 12 asked the First Circuit for a rehearing of its November decision declining to revive a pay-for-delay class action against AstraZeneca PLC and Ranbaxy Inc. over the drug. Retailers including Walgreen Co., CVS Pharmacy Inc. and Giant Eagle Inc. said the appeals court's ruling was incorrect on a question of causality and contradicted the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in FTC v. Actavis. "The panel's error has the potential to eviscerate private enforcement of the antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly as against unlawful and anti-competitive reverse payment patent settlement agreements, which can prevent or delay generic pharmaceutical competition to the ultimate detriment of United States consumers," the retailers said. In its decision, the First Circuit said the retailers could not litigate their theory that Ranbaxy would have launched a generic version of Nexium despite the risk of being held liable for damages if AstraZeneca had not paid it to delay the launch in a patent litigation settlement, the retailers said. The panel held that the issue was moot because a lower court ruled the retailers had not shown that the underlying patents would be judged invalid. However, that holding was erroneous, the retailers said. In Actavis, the Supreme Court recognized that antitrust plaintiffs should not be required to conclusively litigate patent merits to determine whether generic drug companies would have entered the market at risk if not for a reverse payment from a brand drug company, they said. The panel also created a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit, which came down on the other side of the causation question in 2003's In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, the retailers said. The end payors, in a separate filing, argued that the First Circuit should reopen the case to remand it to the district court for further proceedings because its decision affirming the lower court's order did not match up with its analysis of the case. The district court's conclusion that a jury's finding that a large and unjustified payment took place between AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy did not necessarily establish a violation of the antitrust law conflicts with the First Circuit's opinion, which said the payment confirmed that some antitrust violation resulted from the settlement, the indirect purchasers said. "This panel having rejected the district court's conclusion as a matter of law, plaintiffs should be permitted to try to prove that defendants' conduct threatens significant health and financial harm to plaintiffs and the public," the end payors said. In its decision, the three-judge First Circuit panel kept a 2014 jury verdict for AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy intact, finding the Nexium buyers had waived some arguments and were incorrect on others. The case is significant not only on its own -- Nexium grossed more than $3 billion a year from 2008 to 2014 -- but also because it is the first jury verdict on pharmaceutical company settlements since Actavis, in which the Supreme Court held that courts should apply the rule of reason to reverse-payment cases. The end-payor class is represented by J. Douglas Richards -- drichards@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jayne A. Goldstein of Pomerantz LLP, Steve D. Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen LLC, Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP, and Matthew Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- of Gupta Wessler PLLC. The retailers are represented by Barry L. Refsin -- brefsin@hangley.com -- Monica L. Rebuck and Maureen S. Lawrence -- mlawrence@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Bernard D. Marcus -- marcus@marcus-shapira.com -- Moira Cain-Mannix and Brian C. Hill of Marcus & Shapira LLP and Richard A. Arnold, Scott E. Perwin, Lauren C. Ravkind and Anna T. Neill -- aneill@knpa.com -- of Kenny Nachwalter PA. Ranbaxy is represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. AstraZeneca is represented by Kannon Shanmugam -- kshanmugam@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP. The case is In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole Magnesium) Antitrust Litigation, case numbers 15-2005 and 15-2006, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. AUDI OF AMERICA: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that it has filed a federal class action lawsuit against Audi of America, LLC and Audi AG in the Northern District of California regarding the auto maker's alleged deliberate deception of consumers when it installed "defeat devices" in certain Audi gasoline engine automobiles. According to the Complaint filed in this lawsuit, Audi allegedly advertised, marketed and sold certain vehicles that contained a hidden "defeat device" in the automatic transmission of the automobile. When the defeat device is activated, the transmission stays in a low rev mode, using less fuel and producing less CO2. In normal traffic, the defeat device is deactivated, and the transmission switches to a mode with higher fuel consumption and CO2 output resulting in increased noxious gases, and less desirable fuel efficiency. The class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of written and express warranty, and violations of California consumer protection laws. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for Audi consumers and injunctive relief. Customers throughout the United States who purchased or leased the following Audi automobiles with a 3.0 gasoline engine and automatic transmission may have a defeat device installed in their vehicle: -- Audi Q5 -- Audi Q7 -- Audi A6 -- Audi A8 If you own or lease any of the vehicles identified above and wish to participate in the lawsuit, or have any questions regarding the litigation, please contact Marc Godino, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to mgodino@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://glancylaw.com. BANDAS LAW: Founder Says Racketeering Class Action Frivolous ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Karmasek and Jon Bilyk, writing for Legal Newsline, report that a Texas attorney who often stands in the way of class action settlements and is now being accused of racketeering in a class action lawsuit filed in an Illinois federal court says the suit is senseless. "The lawsuit is absolutely frivolous," Christopher Bandas of The Bandas Law Firm, based in Corpus Christi, Texas, said in an email to Legal Newsline. Mr. Bandas and his firm are among those defendants being sued by Edelson PC, a prominent Chicago firm that handles consumer, tech and privacy class action litigation. Mr. Edelson filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Dec. 5. The named defendants also include law firms Noonan Perillo & Thut, of Chicago, and the Darrell Palmer Law Offices, of Solana Beach, Calif. Other individual defendants include attorneys Darrell Palmer and C. Jeffery Thut. The defendants are accused in the 49-page complaint of engaging in a pattern of racketeering and extortion as "professional objectors," who use the law to extract payoffs, often worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, in exchange for withdrawing objections holding up the completion of class action settlement payments worth millions from corporations and businesses targeted. Mr. Edelson specifically accuses Mr. Bandas and his firm of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and other laws in connection with Mr. Bandas' alleged repeated moves to interfere with class action settlements, simply to profit. The lawsuit asks the Chicago federal court to declare Mr. Bandas and his fellow defendants "vexatious litigants" and prohibit them from filing objections to class action settlements, without court approval. The lawsuit also asks the court to award unspecified "monetary, actual, consequential and compensatory damages" to Mr. Edelson and other class action plaintiffs' lawyers who may join in the legal action as well as "injunction, statutory and/or declaratory relief." Mr. Edelson attorneys, including Edelson founder Jay Edelson, are representing the firm in the class action. The lawsuit comes on the heels of an alleged attempt by Messrs. Bandas, Thut and Palmer to extract payment from Edelson as the firm sought to finalize a $13.8 million deal to settle a class action lawsuit against Gannett Co. over alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That lawsuit alleged Gannett had used an autodial program to call people on their mobile phones without obtaining consent, as required under the TCPA. Gannett has continued to deny the allegations, but has agreed to pay the settlement to end the lawsuit and avoid trial. The settlement was approved in September. Yet, in October, Mr. Thut, allegedly in conjunction with Messrs. Bandas and Palmer, filed an objection on behalf of a man identified as Gary Stewart. The objection was overruled, and settlement finalized. Mr. Edelson said Mr. Thut has threatened to appeal, to "hold up final resolution of the case." And in November, during a "mediation session," Mr. Bandas and his associates, without addressing the merits of the settlement, allegedly demanded $225,000-$445,000 as a "fee to go away." After accepting the deal, Mr. Edelson said they also threatened to inform the court of the payoff, at which time Mr. Bandas and his associates allegedly "attempted to back out of the deal." Yet Mr. Edelson alleged the behavior was only a part of a campaign of "serial objections" to various class action settlements. The lawsuit filed notes Mr. Bandas has filed at least 55 objections in the past 10 years, though Mr. Edelson said they believe "these 55 objections likely represent only a small fraction of the total number of objections in which Mr. Bandas has been involved." Mr. Edelson said Mr. Bandas is the most prolific "serial objector" in the U.S., followed by Palmer. Mr. Thut has thus far objected to six class action settlements, but is "just getting started," Mr. Edelson alleges. The complaint notes the courts have repeatedly criticized Mr. Bandas and his associates for their "serial objections," and their pattern of conduct has been documented in court documents, including in a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which was publicized in a report by Reuters. Yet Mr. Edelson said Mr. Bandas and his associates "have often avoided sanctions and reprimand from the courts . . . because defendants routinely and purposely fail to file appearances in cases where they attempt to extort class counsel through improper objections as a means to avoid consequences." The complaint does not state how many of Mr. Edelson's class action settlements Messrs. Bandas, Palmer or Thut have objected to. However, Mr. Edelson has had many such settlements in recent years, with more likely to come. Among many others, Mr. Edelson served as class counsel in a lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, Economic Strategy Group, the Berkley Group and others, securing a $76 million settlement on behalf of hundreds of thousands of potential plaintiffs who allegedly received cruise sales pitches, disguised as political surveys, on their cell phones. Attorneys in the case, including the Chicago firm Loevy & Loevy, are poised to collect more than $24 million in fees from that settlement. In September, a $12.1 million settlement was approved in a class action against Nationstar Mortgage over automated telephone calls. Mr. Edelson was among a group of plaintiffs' lawyers to receive a combined $3.7 million in attorney fees from the deal, which scheduled $45 to go to each class member. Also, a year ago, Mr. Edelson settled with Walgreens for $11 million in a lawsuit alleging the company broke federal law by sending its customers prescription reminders to customers' cell phones. Mr. Edelson was scheduled to earn $2.8 million from that settlement. Mr. Edelson said Mr. Bandas is the most prolific "serial objector" in the U.S., followed by Palmer. Mr. Thut has thus far objected to six class action settlements, but is "just getting started," Mr. Edelson alleges. The complaint notes the courts have repeatedly criticized Mr. Bandas and his associates for their "serial objections," and their pattern of conduct has been documented in court documents, including in a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which was publicized in a report by Reuters. Yet Messrs. Edelson said Bandas and his associates "have often avoided sanctions and reprimand from the courts . . . because defendants routinely and purposely fail to file appearances in cases where they attempt to extort class counsel through improper objections as a means to avoid consequences." The complaint does not state how many of Mr. Edelson's class action settlements Messrs. Bandas, Palmer or Thut have objected to. However, Mr. Edelson has had many such settlements in recent years, with more likely to come. Among many others, Mr. Edelson served as class counsel in a lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, Economic Strategy Group, the Berkley Group and others, securing a $76 million settlement on behalf of hundreds of thousands of potential plaintiffs who allegedly received cruise sales pitches, disguised as political surveys, on their cell phones. Attorneys in the case, including the Chicago firm Loevy & Loevy, are poised to collect more than $24 million in fees from that settlement. In September, a $12.1 million settlement was approved in a class action against Nationstar Mortgage over automated telephone calls. Mr. Edelson was among a group of plaintiffs' lawyers to receive a combined $3.7 million in attorney fees from the deal, which scheduled $45 to go to each class member. Also, a year ago, Mr. Edelson settled with Walgreens for $11 million in a lawsuit alleging the company broke federal law by sending its customers prescription reminders to customers' cell phones. Mr. Edelson was scheduled to earn $2.8 million from that settlement. BELLAMY'S: Faces Class Action Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- Mark Hawthorne and Catie Low, writing for Brisbane Times, report that embattled infant formula and baby food company Bellamy's Australia is facing a class action lawsuit from legal giant Maurice Blackburn, with two other firms also considering taking action on behalf of angry shareholders, in the wake of a $500 million rout of its share price. Maurice Blackburn released a statement on Dec. 14 confirming it was "seriously investigating a potential class action claim" against Bellamy's. According to the firm's class action principal Ben Slade, the investigation is focused on "alleged breaches of its continuous disclosure obligations and for possibly engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct regarding its infant formula trade with China". Maurice Blackburn has opened an online registration page on its website seeking "shareholders that have been hit by the recent shock price drop". News of the class action comes amid mounting speculation that Bellamy's will ultimately be sold and delisted, with a number of Chinese buyers looking at the infant formula brand. After trading as high as $16.50 this time last year, Bellamy's shares collapsed to a low of $6.80 on December 2, after the company released a shock trading update that revised its China sales downward. Bellamy's has since gone into a trading halt, followed by a week-long suspension of its shares from the ASX. The class action follows a BusinessDay report on Dec. 10, which revealed that Bellamy's market share in Australia collapsed between April and October this year. The confidential Aztec data, showing supermarket and pharmacy sales, revealed that Bellamy's market share plunged from 25 per cent of the domestic infant formula sales in April to just 12 per cent by October. In dollar terms, Bellamy's went from earning one in every four dollars spent on baby formula in the country to just one in nine. Despite the massive decline, Bellamy's failed to issue a single update to the market or investors that warned of issues that may impact the company's bottom line. Bellamy's went into a trading halt on Dec. 12, following publication of the story. On Dec. 14, instead of coming out of a trading halt, the company asked the ASX to suspend its shares immediately, leaving its shareholders in limbo for another week. Maurice Blackburn will focus on April and August announcements made by the company, as well as the Aztec data revealed by Fairfax Media. "That data will be something we look at," Mr Slade said. "It has been pretty extraordinary market reaction, we saw $500m wiped off the share price. It beggars belief that a announcement that causes such market reaction is something that wasn't known at some time earlier by the company." The suspension from the ASX leaves tens of thousands of mum and dad investors unable to sell their stock, which has plunged from as high as $16.50 about 12 months ago to just $6.68 on Dec. 9 before the stock went into a trading halt. Under ASX listing rules, a voluntary suspension means that no trading in the stock can take place and all existing buy and sell orders are automatically "purged" from trading platforms. Bellamy's said the suspension was "necessary for the company to manage its continuous disclosure obligations while it continues with a review in order to finalise an updated announcement on the impact of trading conditions on the company's expected financial results." Trading in Bellamy's shares ahead of its business update on December 2 has also caught the attention of the corporate watchdog. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission would not comment on Bellamy's specifically except to say that "as a matter of course it investigated unusual trading volumes ahead of material events such as profit updates." Singapore-based analyst Lloyd Moffatt, who once quipped Bellamy's was so popular it almost sold itself has a view that the "blue sky story" for the stock is dead. "They are either going to have to sacrifice revenue growth or margins and either of those mean less profits and that's before they've even got to the regulatory issues. "My view is it will be bought," Mr Moffatt said. An analyst for Religare, Mr Moffatt predicted Bellamy's was headed for trouble six months ago on the basis that the infant milk scandals in China had distorted demand for product in Australia. "Over the past five years, the birth rate in Australia has been flat at 310,000 per annum while IMF sales have tripled; we thus believe that the company's revenue growth run-rate is unlikely to sustain, going forward." BOURNE LEISURE: Hill Dickinson Wins Defense in Norovirus Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Howard at Maritime Logistics Professional reports that Hill Dickinson said it successfully defended its client, Bourne Leisure, in a 219-claimant class action involving a Norovirus outbreak which occurred at a Butlin's site in 2011. More than 4,000 guests and an additional 1,200 team members were onsite at the time of the outbreak and around 400 people reported illness. The firm's client denied liability throughout on the basis that its policies and procedures for dealing with a Norovirus outbreak were sufficiently robust and had been appropriately followed. The claimants' solicitor issued court proceedings in 2014. Despite expert evidence, provided by a microbiologist, gastroenterologist and environmental health officer, which supported Bourne Leisure's defence, the claimants' solicitors continued on to trial and maintained that it would only settle for damages and costs, an offer which was refused by the client. A 15-day trial of the claim was set to commence on 28 November at London's High Court before Mr Justice Lewis. However, the claimants' case subsequently disintegrated upon receipt of a joint report from the parties' microbiology experts, which agreed that it was improbable that the point source of the causative Norovirus outbreak was food prepared at Butlin's. Hill Dickinson evidenced how its client had done nothing to either cause or exacerbate the outbreak and in addition, was able to rebut the claimant's quality complaints with records retained at the resort. Hill Dickinson pressed for the claimants to discontinue, which they did just 10 days before trial, paying its client's costs of GBP400,000 ($493,000). The claimants' law firm had put forward an offer to settle for damages in the sum of GBP120,000.00 ($147,000,000) (approximately GBP500.00 ($616,000) per claimant). Their costs schedule, if they had been successful, inclusive of the 100% success fee uplift, would have been in the region of GBP6 million ($7.4m). Commenting on the case, Hill Dickinson partner, David Scott, said: "This is an excellent result for our client and demonstrates the advantages of maintaining a robust defence in circumstances where there can be shown to have been good policies and systems in place, appropriately implemented and evidenced by retained documentation." Dermot King, managing director of Butlin's, added: "Butlin's is an iconic and trusted British brand and such inaccurate and defamatory claims can be hugely damaging to our reputation as a business. "We have maintained this was a Norovirus outbreak since June 2011. There was not only an outbreak at Butlin's during this time but also the surrounding area which affected hospitals and local schools. "The outbreak was extremely well controlled and the environmental health officer visiting the site during the outbreak was satisfied the policies and procedures were being implemented. "The Butlin's Norovirus Policy has since been accredited by the Chartered Institution of Environmental Health and the Royal Society for Public Health." This is the second victory of its kind for Hill Dickinson. In what is seen as a landmark judgment, it was the first law firm to have successfully defended the first UK class action involving Norovirus onboard a cruise liner in 2015. BSN MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in RJF Chiropractic Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RJF CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. BSN MEDICAL, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00842-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), filed its "placeholder" motion for class certification and request for status conference pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). RJF Chiropractic proposes this class definition: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, and (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, and/or (5) which did not display a proper opt-out notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GAqy26Bd The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad McGowan, Esq. McGOWAN HOOD FELDER 1517 Hampton St. Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779-0100 Facsimile: (803) 256-0702 E-mail: cmcgowan@mcgowanhood.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com CALIFORNIA: CDOT Violates Homeless People's Rights, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Darwin Bond Graham, writing for East Bay Express, reports that a complaint filed on Dec. 13 in state court alleges that the California Department of Transportation is systematically violating the constitutional rights of homeless people in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville by destroying personal property during "sweeps." According to the attorneys who filed the suit, Caltrans' actions amount to a violation of the California and U.S. constitutions. "[Caltrans'] illegal actions deprive homeless individuals of personal belongings that are critical to their survival, such as clothing, medication, cooking utensils, tents, and blankets, as well as of irreplaceable personal possessions, such as family photographs," the attorneys claim in their lawsuit. One of the plaintiffs in the case, James Leone, alleges that in April of this year a Caltrans crew accompanied by CHP officers ordered him to move his camp and belongings off state property, giving him only five minutes to comply. According to Leone, before the five minutes were up, Caltrans workers began throwing his belongings, including a tent, sleeping bag, camping stove, and more, into a trash compactor. "When Mr. Leone successfully pulled his bicycle out of the compactor before it was could be destroyed, a CHP officer pulled out his Taser and threatened to use it," the lawsuit alleges. Attorneys with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, ACLU of Northern California, East Bay Community Law Center and the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr say that Caltrans practices are in violation of the department's own policy, which was written after two previous lawsuits over the same matter. A spokesman for the California Department of Transportation told the Express that Caltrans cannot comment on pending litigation and declined to address specific allegations. As the Express previously reported, many East Bay residents who live on state property around the freeways have experienced what are called the "sweeps." In the process, they've lost valuable property, which they claim is often thrown directly into garbage compactors rather than stored so that it can later be recovered. Caltrans officials have maintained, however, that their actions are not in violation of any laws, and that it's their policy to store confiscated items that have an apparent value of $50 or more so that the owners can reclaim them. Earlier this year, Caltrans provided the Express with access to its East Bay storage facility. Inside a shed on the grounds of the Telegraph Avenue yard in Oakland, were a pair of bicycles, bike parts, two generators, several tents, and a surfboard. Osha Neumann of the East Bay Community Law Center, one of the groups backing the lawsuit, said he's requested inventory records from Caltrans for confiscated property, and that he thinks the agency has too little in storage compared to the number of sweeps they're conducting. "There is practically nothing there," he said about the storage shed on Telegraph Avenue. "There's maybe twelve items, and given the number of sweeps and amount of stuff they've taken, there's a big disconnect." Mr. Neumann said that EBCLC has filed 74 claims for people with Caltrans over confiscated property but that not a single person has ever gotten their property back after it was confiscated or thrown away. "They've never been successful in getting anything back," said Mr. Neumann. "Every single claim has either not been responded to or denied." CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Kautsman" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Nicolay Kautsman and Olga Kofanova, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC and Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 16-00002-26599-5, was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01940 to the proceeding. Carrington Mortgage provides mortgage loan servicing support services to borrowers and investors in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harish Bharti, Esq. 6701 37th Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98117 Telephone: (206) 819 5484 E-mail: bharti@lawyer.com - and - Jason E Anderson, Esq. 8015 15th Ave. NW, Ste 5 SEATTLE, WA 98117 Telephone: (206) 706 2882 E-mail: jellisandersonecf@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by Frederick B Rivera, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359 3596 Facsimile: (206) 359 4596 E-mail: FRivera@perkinscoie.com - and - Tina R. Thomas, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359 8106 E-mail: tthomas@perkinscoie.com CEMPRA INC: Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Due Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a securities class action has been filed against Cempra Inc. and certain of its officers. This class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased Cempra between May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported its preliminary review of Cempra's drug, solithromycin, to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and specified a significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity. Following this news, Cempra stock dropped $9.71 per share or over 58% to $6.95 on November 2, 2016. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) one of Cempra's lead product candidates, solithromycin, posed significant safety risks for hepatotoxicity; and (2) consequently, Cempra's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. To discuss this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/cempor contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in Cempra, you have until January 3, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Khang Law Firm's Statement Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Cempra, Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the January 3, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased Cempra shares during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cempra made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that solithromycin posed significant safety risks for hepatotoxicity, so the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a preliminary review on its website of Cempra's drug, solithromycin, highlighting a significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity. When this news was disclosed to the public, shares of Cempra decreased in value, causing investors harm. CENTENE CORPORATION: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Centene Corporation. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between April 26, 2016 and September 6, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the January 13, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased shares of Centene during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that Centene made materially false and misleading statements concerning the acquisition of Health Net, Inc. on March 24, 2016, as well as failed to disclose: that certain Health Net insurance programs were significantly underperforming, which led to the need to increase reserves to offset losses caused by these programs; that Centene overstated the financial prospects of Health Net; and that as a result of the above, the Company's statements its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When this information was disclosed to the public, the value of Centene fell, causing investors harm. CHEMTALL INC: Gets $6MM From Workers' Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Li of West Virginia Public Broadcasting reports that in the decade-long court case William K. Stern, et al. vs. Chemtall, Inc., et al., workers in coal preparation and wastewater treatment sought medical monitoring for the potential increase of neurological problems caused by exposure to hazardous materials used in their jobs. As part of the $13.95 million settlement, workers can now use a free health monitoring program. About $6 million went to plaintiffs' attorneys, according to the West Virginia Record. The legal teams decided that the remaining roughly $6 million should be divided equally between the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute at West Virginia University and the Robert C. Byrd Center for Rural Health at Marshall University. "What we devised was a medical monitoring program where the folks were able to have examinations to see if they had neurological problems," said Wheeling attorney R. Dean Hartley. "We expected that we would have some money left over, because we didn't think everybody would take part in the examination process. We had designed into (the settlement) money leftover. What should we do with it? The parties agreed it should be used for neurological research." Mr. Hartley, along with Charleston attorney E. William Harvit, claims administrator Edward Gompers and Judge David Hummel traveled to the two campuses to deliver the checks in person. During the ceremony at West Virginia University, George Spirou, co-director of BRNI, said the money would help advance studies of the human brain. "We're developing and using these new technologies," he said. "So we are going to be a leader -- I'm telling you now -- we are going to be a leader in human neuroscience." The funding will be used at Marshall to tackle health problems specific to residents of rural areas. COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Sued Over Medical Repayment Plan Late Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new class action lawsuit has charged two of the Chicago area's largest utility companies with improperly adding finance charges and late fees to so-called "medical payment arrangements" -- or special electric and natural gas bill repayment plans required by the state, should utility customers suffer significant health problems interfering with their ability to pay their bills on time. On Dec. 9, plaintiff John Tamburo, identified as a Will County resident, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court through attorney Daniel A. Edelman, of the firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, of Chicago, against electricity provider Commonwealth Edison and natural gas utility Nicor, alleging purported billing practices by the utility companies violated the Illinois Public Utility Act and the state's consumer fraud law. According to the complaint, Mr. Tamburo at some point suffered unspecified "health problems," which, in September, allowed him to qualify for special protections under Illinois law. Among other provisions, the law prohibits electric and natural gas utilities from disconnecting service for at least two months for failure to pay by residential customers who have a "certified medical necessity." The law also requires the utilities to offer the customers the opportunity to pay back their unpaid bills in small installments. Mr. Tamburo said he received those accommodations from both ComEd and Nicor, and had an arrangement to repay his past due amounts over 12 months. However, the plaintiff said, when he received the bills, he noted ComEd had added a 1.5 percent finance charges of $74 per month, and Nicor had tacked on late fees boosting his bill by more than $8 per month. The complaint said ComEd and Nicor informed Mr. Tamburo adding on such charges to the monthly installments were part of the companies' "standard practice." But those charges, the lawsuit alleged, are not permitted by the Illinois law governing the medical payment arrangements. Messrs. Tamburo and Edelman said the utilities' practices likely mean many others in the state have been similarly assessed finance charges and late fees. They asked the court to expand the lawsuit to become a class action potentially involving any customers who made medical payment arrangements with ComEd and Nicor over the last five years. The complaint does not estimate how large that number of additional plaintiffs may be. The lawsuit asked the court to order ComEd to repay the finance charges and Nicor to refund the late fees. Messrs. Tamburo and Edelman also asked the court to award unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees. CONCERTED CARE: To Close Cordillera Lodge Despite Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Wyrick, writing for Vail Daily, reports that Cordillera and the Baltimore firm buying the lodge and spa are firing litigation bombs back and forth. Noah Nordheimer's Concerted Care Group says it will close The Lodge and Spa at Cordillera on Feb 28. Mr. Nordheimer wants to spend $80 million to transform it into a health, wellness and high-end addiction treatment center. Cordillera's residents returned fire with a $100 million class- action lawsuit, led by Thomas Wilner, a Washington, D.C., attorney who heads Cordillera's legal committee. Mr. Wilner went to war with the federal government when he represented 11 Kuwaiti prisoners held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center at the U.S. Navy base in eastern Cuba. Cordillera's class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court in Denver, asks the court to stop Concerted Care Group and current Lodge owner, Austin, Texas-based Behringer Harvard. The lawsuit personally sues Behringer Harvard owner Robert M. Behringer and its President and CEO Michael D. Cohen. The lawsuit says Messrs. Behringer and Cohen "aided, abetted and directed the fraudulent activities of BH and make significant decisions regarding the operations and assets of BH." Cordillera's property owners association and metro district are not parties to the class-action lawsuit. NORDHEIMER NOT IMPRESSED Mr. Nordheimer said he remains nonplussed, calling the $100 million lawsuit "frivolous." "It's frivolous and will be treated as such," Mr. Nordheimer said. The lawsuit asserts that Behringer Harvard is violating the same regulations it pushed through in 2009, which do not allow the kinds of "substantive changes" they now want to make, Mr. Wilner said. "They're now asserting it can be replaced by any of the 33 other uses," Mr. Wilner said. That $100 million is not a difficult number to reach when you add up the value of the 900 homes in Cordillera and calculate that they could drop between 30 and 50 percent in value, as homes have in other communities when facilities like this are opened, Mr. Wilner said. Mr. Nordheimer rejects their claim. "Any claims that we are negatively impacting home values are fabricated. Prices in Cordillera are up since we went under contract. I doubt they even looked at the sales data before filing this," Mr. Nordheimer said. "We are bringing in doctors and professionals who trained at Yale, MIT, Stanford, . . . some of the brightest minds in the country to live and work here. Yet they claim I am negatively impacting property values. . . . Come on, man!" ALSO GROUSE ON THE GREEN Along with the lodge and spa, Mr. Nordheimer said Concerted Care Group is purchasing Grouse on the Green, the restaurant and clubhouse for Cordillera's par 3 golf course. His firm also is buying the Strawberry Park condominiums/Ski Chalet. "We are excited to be moving ahead with this project," Mr. Nordheimer said. Plans for that building have not been finalized, Mr. Nordheimer said. "At this point, we're exploring all of our options for those ancillary properties, including selling them off to other groups," Mr. Nordheimer said. Cordillera's property owners' association owns the short course. "I'm not sure if their powers that be thought about how they would operate a golf course without a clubhouse or parking lot. It seems like a very large oversight on their part," Mr. Nordheimer said. The par 3 golf course was separated from the property that operates it, Grouse on the Green, during the litigation with Cordillera Club owner David Wilhelm. "It appears to have left the community in a vulnerable position, another gift from the Wilhelms to Cordillera," Mr. Nordheimer said. DISTRICT COURT APPEALS All this comes on the heels of a pair of lawsuits filed in local District Court, appealing a unanimous decision by Eagle County's Board of County Commissioners to allow Mr. Nordheimer to move ahead with his plan. Cordillera Property Owners Association and the Cordillera Metro District sued Eagle County and the county commissioners, asking District Court Judge Fred Gannett to throw out the commissioners' decision. Cordillera homeowners Barbara and Jack Benson sued Eagle County separately. Cordillera wants the county commissioners' decision overturned and damages, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and "any other relief that the court may deem just." "I think the commissioners' decision was influenced a great deal by the idea that if they did not approve it, they could be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act," Mr. Wilner said. Cordillera's covenants do not allow the lodge to be separated from the rest of Cordillera and replaced with these other uses, Mr. Wilner said. On top of that, those same covenants require 67 percent of the property owners to approve such a change, Mr. Wilner said. However, metro district Executive Director Rachel Oys said the District Court lawsuits were part of Cordillera's appeal and not a new legal action. "We believe under Colorado law it's our right to appeal any of these decisions," Ms. Oys said. Mr. Nordheimer countered that Cordillera's appeals have nothing to do with the commissioners' decision. He said Colorado is second in the nation for prescription opioid abuse and that "people are dying at alarming rates, and this facility is desperately needed." "I have never seen a group of seemingly successful people operate with such disregard for the law," Mr. Nordheimer said. "They have deliberately made immoral and illegal decisions in attempt to block people's access to care." COOK COUNTY, IL: Status Hearing in "Rogers" Suit Reset to Jan. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on December 18, 2016, in the case titled Keith Rogers v. Sheriff of Cook County, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11632 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. The minute entry states that the status hearing and pending motions are reset from December 19, 2016, to January 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p4nx7xzL CUBA: Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism to Receive Payouts ------------------------------------------------------------- Monika Gonzalez Mesa, writing for Law.com, reports that administrators of a new federal fund for victims of government- sponsored terrorism will distribute more than $2 billion dollars early next year to claimants who are now receiving letters informing them whether and how much they are authorized to receive from the fund. Many of the victims hold court judgments against such states as Cuba and Iran. Many of those judgments total millions of dollars. Administrators have a Dec. 17 deadline to authorize claims. When a victim holding a court judgment against a country gets paid by the fund, the foreign government's debt to the victim doesn't disappear. Rather, the rights to that portion of the victim's judgment are transferred to the U.S. government. The president then has the right to use that as part of any negotiations with the country named in the suit. The U.S. has been in negotiations over a host of issues with both Cuba and Iran over the last two years. U.S. and Cuban officials met in Havana on Dec. 7 to discuss claims, economic issues, human rights and other matters, including civil aviation, health, law enforcement, environmental protection, agriculture, migration, educational and cultural exchanges and human trafficking. While the fund won't pay off all the judgment debts, and in some cases, will pay only a fraction of a compensatory judgment, the fund may go a notable distance toward easing one of the biggest obstacles to doing business with Cuba -- the fact that Cuban assets that touch U.S. soil can be seized by those holding judgments against Cuba. The U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, passed quietly last December as part of the appropriations bill, will award millions of dollars to U.S. victims of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and to terrorism victims who hold court judgments against the governments of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, South Yemen, and Syria. Although ordinarily nations can't be sued in civil court under sovereign immunity laws, a 1996 law made it possible to sue countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism. More than 2,800 claims have been filed with the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, although it is still not known how many of these will ultimately be deemed eligible by the Dec. 17 authorization deadline. With billions outstanding against the countries, attorneys said the more than $2 billion expected to be in the fund this year won't be enough to pay the eligible claims in full -- at least not in the fund's first distribution. U.S. litigants are believed to have more than $10 billion in judgments against Iran alone, according to Jose M. Ferrer -- jferrer@bilzin.com -- a partner at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod in Miami. The claimants will be notified of the amount of their initial payments in early 2017, according to the Department of Justice. Whatever pro-rated amount the fund pays to a judgment holder, the rights to that amount of the judgment claim are transferred to the U.S. government. The president can then pursue the claims, or waive the debt as a bargaining chip in any negotiations related to normalizing relations or lifting sanctions against the foreign state designated a terrorism sponsor, according to the federal law. In the case of Cuba, the law is likely to be seen as helpful to proponents of normalization who argue that engaging with Cuba makes it easier to lobby for human rights there, Mr. Ferrer said. Cuba was removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism in May of 2015. But during the 33 years it was on the list, terrorism victims obtained an estimated $4 billion in court judgments that allow their attorneys to seize Cuban government assets that reach U.S. soil. The judgments are therefore considered among the biggest impediments to re-opening trade with Cuba. Cuba was placed on the state sponsors of terrorism list in 1982 because of its involvement in the arming, funding and training of leftist guerrillas in Latin America and Spain, and its harboring of fugitives. The judgments are separate from the now approximately $8 billion in property claims stemming from expropriations of American-owned properties following the Cuban Revolution, which is largely what prompted the Cuban embargo in the first place. Some attorneys representing judgment holders have already received Department of Justice letters informing them that claims they represent have been authorized, and specifying the amount they are eventually eligible to receive. But the letters do not say how much will be distributed in 2017, said Andrew C. Hall -- andyhall@hlhlawfirm.com -- founding partner of Hall, Lamb and Hall in Miami. Hall represents a number of the pending cases, including victims of the USS Cole bombing and the family of Gustavo Villoldo, the holders of the largest of the terrorist judgments against Cuba. Mr. Villoldo committed suicide after his business was seized by Fidel Castro's government. The Villoldo family was awarded a $2.8 billion default judgment in 2011 -- about $1.4 billion of it in compensatory damages. The total compensatory damages for the victims of the USS Cole bombing -- a terrorist attack that took place in October 2000 against a United States Navy destroyer while it was being refueled in Yemen -- was $98 million, Mr. Hall said. Seventeen American sailors were killed and 39 were injured in the attack. Those who hold a judgment against a nation designated as a state sponsor of terrorism are eligible to receive from the fund any compensatory damages up to a limit of $20 million per individual, or up to $35 million per family. Punitive damages and interest are not included. Victims of the Iranian hostage crisis, who were not allowed to sue Iran as part of the Algiers Accord that negotiated their release, may receive up to $10,000 for each of the 444 days they were held, or $4.44 million. A spouse or child of a hostage can receive a lump sum of $600,000. Mr. Hall said attorneys representing judgment holders are hopeful that in the first round of disbursements, their clients will see up to 30 percent of the amounts they are eligible to receive. The fund is comprised of money collected by the U.S. from forfeited property sales and from fines arising from doing business with state sponsors of terrorism, as well as an initial $1.025 billion congressional appropriation from the U.S. Treasury. About $1 billion is expected to come from penalties paid by French bank BNP Paribas in its record-setting $8.9 billion settlement for violating sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba, Messrs. Ferrer and Hall said. Whenever the sanctions penalty money collected in the fund has reached $100 million, a new round of disbursements can be paid on still eligible claims through 2026, when the fund sunsets. Over the next decade, another $1.5 billion is projected to go into the fund from criminal and civil fines resulting from pending cases related to violations of sanctions against Iran, according to Mr. Ferrer's research on the topic. Although the law caps attorneys' fees at 25 percent, Mr. Ferrer said critics see the fund as a windfall for plaintiffs attorneys and argue against using money from the U.S. Treasury to satisfy civil judgments against sponsors of terrorism. "These are judgments against other countries and we are using taxpayer funds," Mr. Ferrer said. DELTA AIR: Non-Exempt Workers Class Certified in "Lopez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class filed in the lawsuit styled REYNALDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.). On September 17, 2015, the putative class action was removed via from state court to the District Court. The putative class consists of all current and former non-exempt employees of Delta in the state of California employed between 2011 and 2015. The Plaintiffs assert 11 causes of action, including failure to provide required meal and rest periods, and failure to pay overtime and minimum wages. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class on all counts in May 2016. The Court found several named Plaintiffs to be inadequate representatives of the class and allowed the Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint, which they did so on October 26, 2016. The Court certifies a liability class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based around the single issue of the regular rate and overtime pay theory. The Class will consist of persons employed by Delta as non-exempt in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time since July 1, 2011, who were paid overtime at least once during their employment. "This class can be easily ascertained by looking at Delta payroll records. The issue for this class is whether Delta correctly calculates the regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay (including, but not limited to, whether Delta should have included shift differential pay and nondiscretionary bonuses)," Judge Wilson opined. "This class will not deal with the issue of overtime hours that the Court denied to certify," Judge Wilson noted. "In other words, for determining damages Delta will only need to look at the overtime actually paid during the class period. The Court will not entertain claims that an employee believes they were not paid for all hours actually worked and thus deserves credit for more overtime hours. Such claims can be litigated in individual actions," Judge Wilson explained. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RldMnqkY EAGLE ROAD: "Adams" Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled James Adams, on behalf of himself and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Eagle Road Oil LLC, Cummings Oil Company, and John Doe, sued as John Does 1-25, The Defendants, Case No. CJ-16-00078, was removed from the Pawnee Cty. Dist. Ct, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00757-CVE-TLW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Claire V Eagan. Eagle Road is an oil and gas company. It is an affiliate of Jericho Oil Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex T Gray, Esq. STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC 400 W Capitol Ave Ste 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 251 1587 - and - Billy Joe Ellington, Esq. Po Box 491 Pawnee, OK 74058 - and - Curt D Marshall, Esq. Robin I Greenwald, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558 5500 Facsimile: (212) 344 5461 - and - Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq. Nate Steel, Esq. Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC 400 W Capitol Ave Ste 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 251 1587 - and - Scott E Poynter, Esq. POYNTER LAW GROUP 440 W CAPITOL AVE STE 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 251 1587 Cummings Oil Company is represented by: Kenneth H Blakley, Esq. Michael Franklin Smith, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT 211 N Robinson 10th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 552 2235 Facsimile: (405) 228 7435 E-mail: ken.blakley@mcafeetaft.com michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com FORSTER GARBUS: Feliciano Seeks Approval of Consumers Class Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the case entitled GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated Plaintiff Case. No. 2:15- cv-04338-CLW v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496- CLW (D.N.J.), to proceed as a class action and granting preliminary approval of the parties' class settlement agreement. The Defendant consents to the filing of the Motion. The proposed class consists of: All Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom Forster, Garbus & Garbus mailed a written communication during the period beginning April 7, 2014, and ending June 24, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of either Sallie Mae or LVNV Funding LLC, which were mailed in a windowed envelope such that the file number or QR Code containing the file number associated with the Debt was visible from the outside of the envelope. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges FG&G violated the FDCPA by mailing consumers collection letters in windowed envelopes such that the file number or QR Code containing the file number associated with the Debt was visible from the outside of the envelope. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kRDN7R6g The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com - and - Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1325 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com GILA LLC: Faces "Newsom" Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gila, LLC. The case is entitled as Keisha Newsom, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gila, LLC, doing business as: Municipal Services Bureau, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv- 03063-JLS-JMA (S.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino. Founded in 1991, Gila offers business process outsourcing focusing on revenue enhancement services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233 7770 Facsimile: (619) 297 1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- The Lead Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the action entitled LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., LAWRENCE J. BLANFORD and FRANCES G. RATHKE, Case No. 2:11-cv- 00289-wks (D. Vt.), as a class action on behalf of a class consisting of: all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. ("Green Mountain") common stock between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011 inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of each of the Defendants; (iii) any person who was an executive officer and/or director of Green Mountain during the Class Period; (iv) any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or any other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants; and (v) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in interest or assigns of any such excluded party. The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives and to appoint the law firms of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xirzwVGM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. Joshua A. Materese, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com kjustice@ktmc.com jdancona@ktmc.com jmaterese@ktmc.com mdesanto@ktmc.com - and - Mark R. Rosen, Esq. Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Lisa M. Port, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Ste. 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: mrosen@barrack.com jbarrack@barrack.com lport@barrack.com - and - John C. Browne, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com - and - Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq. LYNN, LYNN, BLACKMAN & MANITSKY, P.C. 76 St. Paul Street, Suite 400 Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 860-1500 Facsimile: (802) 860-1580 E-mail: amanitsky@lynnlawvt.com HAMILTON COUNTY: Federal Class Suit Filed Over Woodmore Bus Crash ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Morrison of Nooga.com reports that two law firms have filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of all the victims of the Nov. 21 Woodmore Elementary School bus crash that left six children dead. Local law firm Berke, Berke & Berke and Maryland-based firm Murphy, Falcon & Murphy filed the suit in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuit alleges that the Hamilton County Department of Education, its Supervisor of Transportation Benjamin Coulter and contract bus company Durham School Services knew that the driver, Johnthony Walker, 24, often slammed his breaks, drove recklessly and intentionally swerved as a form of discipline. It claims that children had been hurt because of those actions before the crash. The lawsuit details the trauma of the crash and of the children's injuries. "The horror was foreseeable, predictable and preventable," according to the lawsuit. It also alleges both the school system and Durham mismanaged the buses to save money and/or profit. All this, the lawsuit alleges, was a violation of the children's constitutional rights. Durham Chief Executive Officer David Duke has expressed his sadness over the crash, announced new safety measures and said the company would pay for the children's funerals. A spokeswoman for the Hamilton County School System said leaders are unable to comment because the litigation is pending. According to a news release from the law firms, the advantage of filing in federal court, in which constitutional violations are asserted, is that plaintiffs aren't subject to the state's monetary limits on liability for government bodies or Tennessee's monetary limits on liability for damages. The complaint is seeking punitive damages against both the bus company and the transportation supervisor for their roles in the crash. HARTFORD FIRE: Certification of Analysts Class Sought in "Allen" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CORDELL ALLEN, ALIA CLARK, PATRICIA DEARTH, CHRIS DEPIERRO, JESSICA LEIGHTON, JESSICA PEREZ, JAMIE RIVERA, LAYFON ROSU, MARISSA SHIMKO, and CAROL SOMERS, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:16-cv-01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.), move the Court for an order: (1) conditionally certifying this collective class of "Analysts" as a national class; (2) requiring the Defendant to produce the names, addresses, telephone numbers and emails of each putative class member; (3) compelling notice of this action be sent to all current Analysts employed by Defendant who are and/or were classified as exempt and all Analysts employed by the Defendant within the 3 years preceding the filing of the instant motion who are and/or were classified as exempt; (4) requiring Defendant to post notice of this action at its work sites and on its company intranet site; and (5) tolling the statute of limitations back to the date of the filing the motion. According to the Motion, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant both filed Notices of Pendency of Other Actions and cited to Monserrate, et al., v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Case no. 6:14-cv-149-ORL-18GJK. The Plaintiffs assert that the Monserrate case is virtually identical to their Case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A8mLbFEI The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mary E. Lytle, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. Robert N. Sutton, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A. 543 N. Wymore Road, Suite 103 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-6544 Facsimile: (407) 622-6545 E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney rsutton@lblaw.attorney The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Bannon, Esq. Molly C. Mooney, Esq. Anthony S. Califano, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4987 Facsimile: (617) 790-6755 E-mail: pbannon@seyfarth.com mmooney@seyfarth.com acalifano@seyfarth.com - and - Arlene K. Kline, Esq. Melissa S. Zinkil, Esq. AKERMAN, LLP 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 653-5000 Facsimile: (561) 659-6313 E-mail: Arlene.kline@akerman.com Melissa.zinkil@akerman.com IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Hearing in "Krupp" Suit Set for January 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Pamela Pepper entered an order in the lawsuit styled LINDA KRUPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMPACT ACQUISITIONS LLC, IMPACT NETWORKING INDIANA, LLC, and IMPACT NETWORKING LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00950-PP (E.D. Wisc.): -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice; -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion for protective order; -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief; and -- scheduling hearing on the Defendants' motion to strike, for protective order, and for sanctions on January 3, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. Linda Krupp brings the putative collective and class action on behalf of herself and current and former digital service technicians (DSTs), who were employed and classified as salaried non-exempt by the Defendants, but were not compensated at one and one-half times their rate of pay when they worked over 40 hours. She alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and its Wisconsin counterparts. The Court appoints the firm of Hawks, Quindel, S.C. as collective action counsel. The Court approves the proposed notice of right to join lawsuit as modified by a 45-day opt-in period. The Court also orders that within 10 days of the date of the order, the Defendants will provide the Plaintiff with an Excel spreadsheet listing necessary information about any persons whom they believe meet the collective class definition. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bKIkaNAV JAY PEAK: Ex-CEO Stenger Denies Class Action Claims --------------------------------------------------- Alan Keays at VT Digger reports that Bill Stenger, the former Chief Executive Officer of Jay Peak, penned his own filing defending himself against fraud allegations brought by investors in a series of projects he headed with his former business partner Ariel Quiros. Mr. Stenger earlier this year settled an investor fraud lawsuit filed against him by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, neither admitting or denying the allegations. However, in a filing in a class-action lawsuit brought by investors against him and others associated with the investor- funded development projects, Mr. Stenger denied wrongdoing. He points the finger of blame at Mr. Quiros, Jay Peak's owner as well as a defendant in the case. The allegations in the class-action lawsuit, led by Brazilian investor Alexandre Daccache, closely mirror claims made by the SEC in their lawsuit against Mr. Stenger and Mr. Quiros. It's unclear if Mr. Stenger's filing in the class-action lawsuit constitutes a breach of his earlier settlement with the SEC regarding his agreement to not challenge the claims against him. Christopher Martin, the SEC attorney, could not be reached December 21 for comment. Attorney David Cleary, who represents Mr. Stenger in a separate case, said December 21 that the agreement with the SEC relates only to that case. "In other litigation, it's another issue," Mr. Cleary said. "I don't think it restricts what he has to do to defend himself in other actions." Mr. Cleary added that Mr. Stenger is representing himself in the Daccache case because he has "limited resources" to pay for legal services. The filing by Mr. Stenger is titled as an "answer" to the class- action lawsuit brought by Daccache and other investors. In the 39- page submission, Mr. Stenger stridently challenges the claims against him and demands a trial. "I deny any knowing involvement in any improper diversion of investor funds, or any misappropriation of investor funds," Stenger wrote in the first paragraph of the filing. He added, "Allegations made against Ariel Quiros and others on this issue, particularly with regard to personal use of funds by others than myself appear accurate, based on information obtained in connection with the SEC litigation." The Daccache lawsuit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of 836 people who collectively invested more than $400 million in several projects led by Mr. Quiros and Mr. Stenger. The projects spanned eight years in northern Vermont, with money raised from foreign nationals seeking green cards through the federal EB-5 immigrant investor program. Defendants in the lawsuit are Mr. Quiros, Mr. Stenger, People's United Bank, Raymond James and Joel Burstein, a branch manager of Raymond James in Coral Gables, Florida, where Mr. Quiros did business. Burstein is also Mr. Quiros' former son-in-law. The suit was filed after the SEC as well as the state of Vermont brought investor fraud lawsuits against Mr. Stenger and Mr. Quiros. Those actions claimed the two men misused $200 million in investor funds meant to pay for projects in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, including hotels at Jay Peak and Burke Mountain. The SEC case also alleges Mr. Quiros "looted" more than $50 million to pay for personal expenses. Both the SEC and Daccache cases are pending in federal court in Miami, which is where Quiros lives and many of his businesses are located. Mr. Stenger, in his filing in the Daccache class-action case, contends that he was not aware that he was he was assisting Mr. Quiros in any fraud scheme. "I still do not know, understand, or have sufficient information to understand or appreciate all of these claims regarding the movement and commingling of EB-5 funds which were apparently, unbeknownst to me, occurring in connection with Mr. Quiros's accounts at Raymond James in Miami, Florida," Mr. Stenger wrote. "I certainly never knowingly participated in any fraudulent Ponzi, or other scheme." Stenger added that he was "never knowledgable" about Mr. Quiros' use of margin loans to apply investment funds for any EB-5 projects, including the improper use of investor funds for completion of earlier EB-5 projects. Those statements appear to contradict information obtained in the SEC case from former accountants at Jay Peak, Michael Dupont and John Carpenter. The SEC referred to an email on Jan. 27, 2009, in which Dupont complained to Mr. Stenger that he hadn't been able to get bank statements from Mr. Quiros starting in August 2008. Mr. Stenger said in his deposition with the SEC that he didn't remember the conversation the email referred to. The SEC pointed out that Mr. Stenger had said he didn't recall any conversation about margin loans, but Dupont referred to a shortfall in the accounts and pointed out the statements showed "ready access margin loans" had been taken out against the investor funds. According to the SEC lawsuit, Mr. Quiros, from 2009 to 2012, leveraged $105 million in investor funds for margin loans. Later that year Dupont left Jay Peak. He was replaced by John Carpenter, who, in his deposition with the SEC, said he realized the developers were commingling funds and using money from new investors to pay for previous projects and resort operating expenses. "On several occasions, I spoke to Mr. Stenger regarding my concerns regarding the magnitude of the additional costs," Carpenter said in his deposition. "When Mr. Stenger and I discussed how the additional costs would be funded he told me that future EB-5 projects and management fees earned by Jay Peak Management, Inc., in future Jay Peak E-5 limited partnerships would help fund the additional costs from the earlier EB-5 limited partnerships." In his answer to the class-action lawsuit filed this week, Stenger wrote, "I realize what the United States SEC has claimed, but l was never knowledgeable of, nor did I participate in the masterminding in any way of any scheme to deprive the investors of anything." Mr. Cleary said that it wasn't a commingling of the funds that was taking place. Instead, he said, a percentage of the "partnership proceeds" from subsequent projects was being used to complete earlier projects, which was permitted as long as it was done "within the confines of the private placement memo." "(Mr. Stenger's) agreement with Mr. Quiros was no money would be taken and put anywhere except in the projects until the last project had been completed," Mr. Cleary said. As part of his settlement with the SEC, Mr. Stenger has agreed to cooperate with investigators. He still faces the possibility of a monetary settlement, to be determined based on his level of cooperation and ability to pay. Mr. Stenger continues to work at Jay Peak. Sources say he comes in on a daily basis, continues to drive a company car and occupies an office at the ski area. Michael Goldberg, the court-appointed receiver, has said he is paying Stenger $50 an hour for special projects, the equivalent of $100,000 a year. The state case, in which Clearly is serving as Mr. Stenger's attorney, remains pending. Cleary filed an answer to that lawsuit denying the allegations and asking for a jury trial. Mr. Quiros is challenging the state and federal lawsuits. He is also contesting the allegations against him in the Daccache class- action case. JOHNSON & BELL: First US Firm Named in Data Security Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Strom, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that in the first public data security class action complaint against a U.S. law firm, Chicago-based Johnson & Bell was named in a lawsuit that says the firm failed to protect confidential client information. The suit against the 100-plus lawyer trial firm was filed in Chicago's federal court in April but made public on Dec. 9 following courtroom fighting over whether or not the firm had patched security holes a former client claimed existed in the firm's time entry system, email system and virtual private network. Brought by well-known class-action lawyer Jay Edelson, the case has been moved to arbitration, where Mr. Edelson says his firm is seeking class confirmation and will seek damages for allegations that the lax security put client information at risk. Mr. Edelson said it is the first class action against a law firm alleging inadequate data security measures. The complaint makes no claim that data was stolen or used against clients. And the security holes identified in the complaint have been fixed, Mr. Edelson said, which is why his firm argued to unseal the case. In a statement, Johnson & Bell called the lawsuit "specious" and said it would defend itself against the claims and would pursue action against the plaintiff when the case concludes. Law firms and their troves of confidential information are well- known targets for hackers, and breaches have slowly trickled into the public view this year. Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Weil, Gotshal & Manges were said to be targets of successful hacking attempts in a March Wall Street Journal article. Fortune reported those attacks were directed by hackers with ties to the Chinese government. But the lawsuit unsealed on Dec. 9 is a new reputation risk for an industry where confidentiality is a bedrock of client service. Johnson & Bell is unlikely to be the last firm named publicly. Even so, it's unclear what damages could be awarded in cases where no data breach exists and when the alleged security deficiencies have been fixed. Mr. Edelson earlier said he would bring a wave of class-action claims against law firms his firm identified as lacking basic security measures. In a March 30 article, Mr. Edelson told Bloomberg Big Law Business that he identified 15 such firms. The suit against Johnson & Bell was filed two weeks later. "This is the first that has become public," Mr. Edelson said on Dec. 9 when asked if he had filed other lawsuits. "We're not talking about (cases) that are not in the public record." Johnson & Bell president William Johnson said his firm's data systems are secure and its clients' information is protected. "We will fully defend our firm against this baseless lawsuit and will seek appropriate action against plaintiffs after the lawsuit is concluded," Mr. Johnson said in a statement. The lawsuit has an incestuous backstory. The data security lawsuit was brought on behalf of Coinabul LLC, a firm that once promised to trade gold for the digital currency bitcoin. Earlier, Coinabul had been sued in July 2014 by a plaintiff represented by Edelson PC, alleging the company defrauded its customers out of millions of dollars' worth of bitcoin. Coinabul hired Johnson & Bell as defense counsel. After Johnson & Bell withdrew from the case, Coinabul and co-defendant Jason Shore were hit with a $1.5 million judgment last year. In July, Mr. Shore was dismissed from that case with prejudice. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wants Judge to Weigh Financiers' Roles in MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Johnson & Johnson has asked a federal judge to order plaintiffs' attorneys applying for lead roles in the multidistrict litigation over its talcum powder products to disclose whether they are backed by third-party financiers. In the request, filed on Nov. 28, Johnson & Johnson attorney Susan Sharko -- susan.sharko@dbr.com -- said her client was "troubled by the prospect of third-party litigation finance playing a role in this MDL proceeding." She cited a Nov. 21 application in which attorney Rick Root said his firm, New Orleans-based Morris Bart, "self-funds its mass torts practice." "This statement suggests awareness that other applicants for the plaintiffs' steering committee are not self-funded, but instead are being financed by outside entities through a practice common referred to as third-party litigation funding," wrote Ms. Sharko, a partner in the Florham Park, New Jersey, office of Drinker Biddle & Reath. Such "unnamed investors" could "exert control or influence over plaintiffs' conduct in this litigation," she wrote. In a response on Nov. 29, Mr. Root clarified that his statement made no reference to how other firms were financed. Neither Ms. Sharko nor a Johnson & Johnson spokesman responded to a request for comment. Mr. Root also did not respond to a request for comment. The request highlights increasing concern among the defense bar that plaintiffs' attorneys should disclose the use of third-party financing firms. At least one federal district, in California, has proposed a rule that would require more transparency over outside funding. More than 1,700 women have sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging its talcum powder products caused them to get ovarian cancer. Most of the suits are in state courts. About 200 lawsuits are pending in Atlantic County, New Jersey, Superior Court. Another 250 plaintiffs have 60 suits in Los Angeles Superior Court. And 20 cases are in the 22nd Judicial District in St. Louis, filed on behalf of more than 1,400 plaintiffs, where juries have come out with verdicts of $72 million, $55 million and $70 million this year. The multidistrict litigation in federal court involves about 60 cases that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson on Oct. 4. Plaintiffs lawyers have backed Michelle Parfitt and P. Leigh O'Dell -- Leigh.ODell@BeasleyAllen.com -- to be co-lead counsel of the MDL. In their Nov. 21 application, Ms. Parfitt, a senior partner at Ashcraft & Gerel in Alexandria, Virginia, and O'Dell, a principal at Montgomery, Alabama's Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, proposed a slate of 17 attorneys to serve in lead roles but made no mention of third-party funding. They did, however, emphasize that the litigation would involve millions of dollars in discovery costs, with bellwether trials alone costing up to $1 million apiece. "Because this litigation involves one of Johnson & Johnson's flagship products, plaintiffs expect that the litigation will be hard-fought and protracted," they wrote. "For these reasons, the PSC must be composed of sufficient numbers of individuals whose firms can adequately discover and fund the litigation." Johnson & Johnson has questioned the amount of discovery needed in the litigation. "It is essential for the courts in the talc cases as well as other litigation to know whether outside investors or hedge funds may be influencing or controlling the plaintiffs' case and how they may benefit from it," said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, a frequent critic of third-party financing. "It's also become apparent that funded cases are often poorly investigated and should receive special scrutiny from the courts." The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 23. KROGER CO: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kroger Co. The case is captioned as Jonathan Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02045-HGD (N.D. Ala., Dec. 21, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III. The Kroger Company is an American retailer founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the country's largest supermarket chain by revenue, second-largest general retailer and twenty-third largest company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Micah S Adkins, Esq. THE ADKINS FIRM PC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Suite 581 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 206 6718 Facsimile: (205) 208 9632 E-mail: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com LA TAN: $1.5MM Fingerprint Scan Class Action Settlement Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports that a court in Chicago issued its approval this month for a $1.5 million settlement in the first of two class action lawsuits filed against L.A. Tan Enterprises, Inc. and some of its local franchisees claiming they mishandled customers' biometric information, mainly collected from fingerprint scans. Out of that settlement, $600,000 will go to the attorneys who filed the class actions. In the case, Sekura v. L.A. Tan, filed in Cook County Circuit Court on November 2015, Edelson P.C. attorneys claimed L.A. Tan used fingerprint scanning technology rather than a key fob to identify its customers in a membership database. They assert that the nationwide tanning franchisor failed to obtain written consent from members prior to collecting the biometric data, and failed to inform them how the information would be stored, and then destroyed when memberships were terminated or the salons closed. Edelson attorneys said in a Bloomberg Law article, that this is the first settlement reached under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires companies to gain consent before collecting a person's biometric data. The settlement terms require L.A. Tan to pay $125 to each class member who filed a claim, and to put processes in place to comply with the Illinois statute or destroy all biometric data it has obtained. Attorney Ben Richman made it clear that the lawsuit did not accuse L.A. Tan of doing anything nefarious or losing or selling its customers' biometric fingerprint date, the Bloomberg report stated. "Rather, the company did not treat the data as carefully as the law requires," the lawsuit states. Mr. Richman also stressed that this type of data is "incredibly sensitive." He said, "You can get a new social security card if it's stolen, but you can't go get a new fingerprint or a new face. This information was incredibly sensitive and it should be treated as such." The Bloomberg report said the consequences of losing biometric data are not yet totally clear. It told, "In 2015, hackers breached the federal government's Office of Personnel Management and stole the fingerprints of 5.6 million government employees." A cyber security expert wrote, "5.6 million U.S. government employees need to remember that someone, somewhere, has their fingerprints. And we really don't know the future value of this data." He said if, in 20 years, we routinely use our fingerprints at ATM machines, that fingerprint database will become very profitable to criminals. And, he said, if fingerprints start being used on our computers to authorize our access to files and data, that database will become very profitable to spies." Another report by the Cook County Record stated that while the scanning and storage of fingerprint data is permissible, Sekura's lawsuit argued L.A. Tan broke the Illinois BIPA law by sharing the scans with an out-of-state, third-party software vendor, identified as SunLync. The second lawsuit was filed shortly after the Sekura case, and was filed against L.A. Tan and franchisee Krishna Schaumburg Tan. The allegations are similar in that it accuses the franchise owner of failing provide BIPA-compliant written notification to customers about the data collection, as well as a retention schedule and guidelines for permanent destruction of fingerprint data should the business fail. Cook County Record said, "With more than 65 percent of L.A. Tan salons in foreclosure, a figure the lawsuit attributed to a 2013 WilliamBruce.org report, Sekura and Edelson argued the future of the biometric information collected by L.A. Tan and its franchisees is also in peril, a concern which they said also prompted the lawsuit." L.A. Tan was represented in the class action suit by Baker Hostetler in Chicago. LANNETT COMPANY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action lawsuit against Lannett Company, Inc. (LCI). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between September 12, 2013 and November 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint claims that Lannett made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's drug pricing relied on unsustainable pricing methods; that Lannett lacked effective internal controls concerning its drug pricing methods; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 3, 2016, Bloomberg News reported that the Justice Department is conducting an antitrust investigation of over a dozen companies, including Lannett, to determine whether they unlawfully colluded with each other to fix generic drug prices. When this information was released, shares of Lannett declined in value, causing investors harm. Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. LEASE FINANCE: Class Certification Sought in Ha Thi Le Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned HA THI LE, HA THI LLC, HANH THI LE, and HA LE LLC, and all others similarly situated v. LEASE FINANCE GROUP, LLC, FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, d/b/a GLOBAL LEASING, FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES CORP. a/k/a FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC and PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:16- cv-14867-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.), filed with the Court their motion to certify class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m8DdhRY4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq. Neil F. Nazareth, Esq. Jason Z. Landry, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com nfn@mbfirm.com jzl@mbfirm.com - and - Susanne Weiner Jernigan, Esq. JERNIGAN LAW FIRM 829 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-9322 Facsimile: (866) 703-7621 E-mail: sue@thejerniganfirm.com - and - James "Wes" Bearden, Esq. J. W. BEARDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 829 Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-9322 Facsimile: (504) 703-7651 E-mail: wes@beardenonline.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ill. Court Tosses Flood Insurance Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal court Dec. 12 tossed a suit from a putative class of Liberty Mutual Group Inc. policyholders who claimed the insurance agency overcharged for its flood insurance policies by not informing customers that their flood risk had been downgraded. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis ruled that the federal laws that govern the National Flood Insurance Program preempt the state law claims lead plaintiff Leo Podgorski brought against Liberty Mutual. Though Mr. Podgorski had argued that the federal preemption of the Standard Flood Insurance Program only applies to situations in which a specific insurance claim is under dispute, Judge Ellis sided with Liberty Mutual, which argued that the federal preemption is not limited to specific instances of disputed claims. "Podgorski cites no authority for the proposition that because courts have encountered a regulation most frequently in one context that is the only context in which it can be applied," Judge Ellis wrote. "The existence of claims-handling cases analyzing preemption in no way limits the applicability of the SFIP's preemptive effect to only those types of cases." Mr. Podgorski, a resident of Antioch, Ill., had originally purchased an SFIP from Liberty Mutual in 2009. At the time he purchased the policy, his home was in a flood zone with the designation "Zone AE," a higher-risk zone according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Buying flood insurance was a mandatory condition of Mr. Podgorski's mortgage, he said in his complaint, because of his Zone AE designation. But in December 2015, Mr. Podgorski said he received a notice from his mortgage company informing him that his insurance policy had been inaccurate as of September 2013, when FEMA had changed his flood risk designation to "Zone X," an area of lower risk. Due to this lower-risk designation, Mr. Podgorski is no longer required to carry flood insurance, though if he chose to, that policy would be less expensive than insurance for a home in Zone AE. Mr. Podgorski brought six state-law claims against Liberty Mutual including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and fraud. Mr. Podgorski and the putative class sought a refund of the excess premium payments, plus punitive damages. But Judge Ellis sided with Liberty Mutual on Dec. 12, granting the company's motion to dismiss Mr. Podgorski's case because Mr. Podgorski's state-law claims were preempted by federal law. Additionally, Judge Ellis said, statements from FEMA support Liberty Mutual's position that state-law claims would be negated by federal ones. "The language of both the SFIP and FEMA's related statement with the proposed rule are expansive and clearly demonstrate an intention that federal law exclusively governs all claims relating to SFIPs, not just those relating to claims handling," Judge Ellis wrote. No representatives from the parties could be reached for comment on Dec. 13. Mr. Podgorski and the class are represented by Salvatore Badala, Michael Hawrylchak, Paul Maslo and Paul Napoli of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. Liberty Mutual is represented by Mark Bradford -- MABradford@duanemorris.com -- Kevin Fee -- kjfee@duanemorris.com - - and Amy Gross -- acgross@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris LLP. The case is Podgorski v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc. et al., case number 1:16-cv-05549 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEPHEN YAGMAN, etc. v. ERIC GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-GHK-E (C.D. Cal.), seeks certification of two classes of persons consisting of persons, who were issued parking violation citations within the City of Los Angeles. The class definition is: "all persons who were issued parking citations by the City of Los Angeles and who were required to pay the amount demanded on the citation in order to obtain an initial hearing on the validity of the citation, and/or who were not provided a valid initial hearing by the citation issuing agency, the City of Los Angeles, as is required by California law, and whose initial adjudications instead were contracted out by the City to a private contractor, Xerox Corporation." Eric Michael Garcetti is the current mayor of Los Angeles. The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2017, 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SNMDG5TM Plaintiff Stephen Yagman is represented by: Joseph Reichmann, Esq. YAGMAN & REICHMANN 475 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287 Telephone: (310) 452-3200 E-mail: JReichm@aol.com MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on December 12, 2016, in the case styled Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd. v. Marcoah Group USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05318 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The minute entry states that pursuant to a notice, the Case is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Status hearing set for December 14, 2016, was stricken, and the motion to certify class is stricken as moot. Civil case is terminated. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=exfiWd9m MDL 2752: "Finnegan" Suit v. Yahoo! Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jim Finnegan, Lucresse Cayemitte, Thomas Howes, and Derron Appleton, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Yahoo, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-09809, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-07228-LHK to the proceeding. The Finnegan case is being consolidated with MDL 2752 re: Yahoo Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 7, 2016. These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from Yahoo's announcement on September 22, 2016, that a data security breach of its network occurred in late 2014 in which the personal account information of at least 500 million Yahoo users was stolen. Common factual questions are presented with respect to Yahoo's practices in safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of the alleged damages. In its December 7, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge. The lead case is 5:16-md-02752-LHK. Yahoo is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. Yahoo was founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and was incorporated on March 2, 1995. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Joel Shelist, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. SHELIST, P.C. 500 N. Michigan Avenue. No. 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 226 0675 E-mail: rjsattorny@aol.com The Defendant is represented by Robert Andrew Chapman, Esq. David A. Wheeler, Esq. Shannon Therese Knight, Esq. CHAPMAN & SPINGOLA LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 630 9202 E-mail: rchapman@chapmanspingola.com dwheeler@chapmanspingola.com sknight@chapmanspingola.com MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Wage Payment Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Derek Hawkins, writing for Wisconsin Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs David Cohan and Susan Schardt filed a putative class action suit against their former employers, Medline Industries, Inc., and MedCal Sales LLC (collectively, "Medline"), alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sec. 115/1 et seq. ("IWPCA"), and other state wage payment statutes, including the New York Labor Law and California Labor Code, on behalf of the class. MONAKER GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood on Dec. 13 disclosed that on December 9, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Monaker Group, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is April 6, 2012 through June 23, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester, FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73120, Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Monaker Group, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Zaklit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ALFRED ZAKLIT AND JESSY ZAKLIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:15-cv-02190-CAS-KK (C.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify these Class and Subclasses: -- IPA 632.7 Late Advisory Cell Phone Class: All persons in California whose outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member, but where Defendants or its agent/s did not advise the Subclass Member within 30 seconds of the onset of the call, that their call was being recorded, within the one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint. -- IPA 632.7 Subclass: All persons in California whose outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and wherein a cellular or cordless device was used by at least one party to the conversation, within the one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint. -- IPA 632.7 Cell Phone Subclass: All persons in California whose outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member, within the one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint. The Plaintiffs also move for their appointment as Class Representatives, and for appointment of their attorneys as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on February 13, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fbAT9eTn The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC is represented by: Mary Kate Kamka, Esq. Erik Kemp, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111, USA Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: mkk@severson.com ek@severson.com NCAA: Alston Case Moving Towards Settlement ------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz at USA Today reports that the sides in a lawsuit against the NCAA and 11 major conferences that seeks damages based on the difference between the value of a traditional athletic scholarship and one that also covers the full cost of attending college provided strong signs December 22 that they are working on a settlement. For the second time in four weeks lawyers on all sides signed a filing with a federal judge in which they asked that all remaining dates in the case's schedule be put off indefinitely "in the interests of justice and efficient management of the litigation." And U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken issued a signed order to that effect. When this occurred on Nov. 22, Wilken responded by establishing a new set of filing deadlines in January and February, and requiring the parties to submit a status report Thursday. Acting on behalf of all parties, lawyers for the NCAA made that submission under provisional seal, asking Wilken to maintain that shield because: "As the parties explained to the Court's clerk via teleconference, the information included in the Joint Status Report is confidential, non-public information entitled to protection." Law cited as the basis for keeping the filing secret states that a party seeking to file a document under seal must "establish that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." The request for seal went on to say that the NCAA and the conferences have conferred with the plaintiffs' lawyers, who agreed that "given the confidential, non-public information contained in the Joint Status Report, the Joint Status Report should be filed under seal." NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the association has no comment beyond the filing. Monetary figures and other terms of a settlement that is not fully in place are examples of the type of information the sides in a case like this would attempt to keep hidden until a deal is ready to presented for a judge's consideration. Such deals can have complex terms before they can be submitted to a judge, and, in this case, the involvement of so many conference as defendants could make the process even more delicate. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case have been seeking to gain class-action status for an action in which they have said in court filings they likely would be seeking more than $240 million in damages. The plaintiffs have argued that if the NCAA's relatively new rules allowing cost-of-attendance-based scholarships been in place years ago, athletes in football, men's basketball and women's basketball those three sports would have received the more valuable scholarships -- thus entitling them to damages. One idea for how to let college athletes have endorsement deals The period covered by the suit is a function of its original filing date in March 2014 and federal antitrust law, which would allow the case to reach back four years. The suit also seeks to cover athletes in football, men's basketball and women's basketball who, subsequent to the suit's initial filing, received -- or are still receiving -- athletic scholarships that do not cover the full cost of attendance. Under antitrust law, if a jury decides to award damages to a plaintiff, the amount is tripled, so more than $720 million could be at stake in the case. Although the NCAA and 11 conferences are named as defendants, other Division I schools and conferences are alleged to have been co-conspirators. The NCAA and the conferences have argued that schools' varying approaches to providing financial aid for athletes should prevent the lawsuit from receiving class-action status. In a separate portion of this case -- which began on behalf of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston -- and in another related case, Wilken already has granted class-action status to groups of athletes challenging the NCAA's cost-of- attendance-based limits on the compensation athletes can receive while playing college sports. In that portion of this case, and in the other related case, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would nullify the new limits. NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Lean Cuisine Preservatives ---------------------------------------------------------- TMZ reports that Lean Cuisine has always touted itself as the healthy alternative . . . which is why some incredulous consumers have sued the diet giant, claiming its food fare is filled with preservatives. Courtney Ross filed a class action suit against Nestle, which manufactures Lean Cuisine frozen dinners, claiming she went to a CVS in NYC and bought the Four Cheese Pizza, paying what she claims is a premium for a preservative-free meal. Ms. Ross says to her chagrin, she checked the label and saw the pie contained citric acid, designed to preserve flavor and freshness. She says other companies fess up when they use citric acid, acknowledging it's a preservative. She mentions Hungry Man, Jimmy Dean and DiGiorno. And Ms. Ross then unleashes a litany of Lean Cuisine meals which contains citric acid, including Asian-Style Pot Stickers, Shrimp Alfredo, Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli and Ranchero Braised Beef. The suit isn't just about money. Ms. Ross wants a "corrective advertising campaign." OPUS BANK: Kessler Topaz-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Opus Bank shareholders that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Opus securities between July 28, 2014, and October 17, 2016, inclusive. FINAL REMINDER: Shareholders who purchased Opus securities during the Class Period may, no later than December 27, 2016, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new- cases/opus-bank#join. Opus shareholders who wish to discuss their legal rights or interests with respect to this action are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or (610) 667 - 7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com Opus Bank provides banking products and services to small and mid- sized companies, entrepreneurs, real estate investors, professionals and high net worth individuals. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Opus Bank and certain of its executive officers made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of the Company's loans were of poor quality; (2) that the Company was over-representing the quality of the loans to the public; (3) that, as such, the Company failed to properly account for the loans in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to recognize large charge-offs associated with the loans; and (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Opus Bank's business, operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 17, 2016, the Company issued a press release entitled "Opus Bank Announces Loan Charge-Offs Will Impact Third Quarter Earnings." Therein, the Company disclosed that its Third Quarter 2016 financial results "will include a $0.59 per diluted share impact from loan charge-offs and is expected to result in a net loss of approximately $0.05 per diluted share for the third quarter of 2016." On this news, shares of Opus Bank's stock declined $7.25 per share, or over 21%, to close at $27.20 per share on October 17, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. Opus shareholders may, no later than December 27, 2016, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information, or to learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new- cases/opus-bank#join. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. OPUS BANK: Lundin-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action lawsuit against Opus Bank concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between July 28, 2014 and October 17, 2016 inclusive. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm in advance of the December 27, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at -- brian@lundinlawpc.com No class has been certified in the above action yet. 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. According to the Complaint, Opus Bank made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that some of the Company's loans were of low quality; that Opus Bank was over-representing the quality of the loans to the public; that the Company failed to properly account for the loans in violation of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; that the Company would be forced to recognize large charge-offs associated with the loans; that Opus Bank lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; and that as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 17, 2016, the Company announced its earnings for the third quarter 2016 and disclosed that it recognized charge-offs on eight loan relationships through the allowance for loan losses at September 30, 2016. When this news was released to the public, the value of Opus Bank declined, causing investors harm. Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. PATTERN ENERGY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Pattern Energy Group Inc. concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between May 9, 2016 and November 4, 2016 inclusive. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Pattern shares during the Class Period are encouraged to contact the firm prior to the January 10, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. 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. According to the Complaint, Pattern made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that Pattern's operations were deficient with respect to various transaction, process level, and monitoring controls; that Pattern lacked effective internal financial controls; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 7, 2016, the Company announced that it had a material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting. Pattern stated that its internal controls were "not effective as of September 30, 2016, due to the aggregation of internal control deficiencies related to the implementation, design, maintenance, and operating effectiveness of various transaction, process level, and monitoring controls." When this information was disclosed to the public, the value of Pattern fell, causing investors harm. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. PENNSYLVANIA: High Court Guidance Sought in Juvenile Convictions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Brambila, writing for the Reading Eagle, reported that attorneys for Richard Lee Olds, 52, a Pittsburgh inmate serving life, asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to clarify whether juvenile convictions for first- and second-degree murder should be sentenced differently. Richard Lee Olds was tried before the Honorable Samuel Strauss and a jury in Allegheny County and was convicted of second degree murder, robbery and conspiracy in the shooting death of Thomas Beitler. According to the report, the murder was committed when Olds was 14 years old, and that court documents described his role in the incident as "minimal". According to the Reading Eagle: "In the wake of U.S. Supreme Court rulings invalidating the commonwealth's mandatory juvenile life- without-parole sentencing schemes, the court has not yet weighed in on the rights of juveniles convicted of second-degree murder who did not kill or intend to kill." "Court guidance is needed to untangle sentencing statutes, attorneys for the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation and the Juvenile Law Center, who filed the petition on Olds' behalf, insist." The report recounted that in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Miller v. Alabama that mandated life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile defendants were cruel and unusual punishment. The court's reasoning was that the young have both a diminished culpability and a heightened capacity for change. The report noted that Pennsylvania was one of a handful of states that did not retroactively extend this constitutional right to those convicted before 2012. In January, justices extended their ruling to include those, like Olds, who were convicted long ago. Paula Reed Ward, writing for The Pittsburgh Press, reported that one of Olds' attorneys, Marc Bookman, the director of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation, said: "In Commonwealth v. Batts, this Court explicitly stated that its ruling did not apply to juveniles convicted of second-degree murder who neither killed nor intended to kill and whose cases were final prior to June 12, 2012." Mr. Bookman, according to the Pittsburgh Press report, noted that the estimated 175 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania convicted of second-degree murder should be excluded from the life maximum sentence required by Batts. The Pittsburgh Press noted that Olds in November was resentenced in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. Because he has already served 37 years, Olds immediately became eligible for parole. However, instead of being released from custody immediately, as his attorneys argued ought to happen, Olds was denied bond and must instead go through the parole process, which takes about three months. The defense, according to the report, argues that Old and others like him are eligible for bond because the low end of the new sentence is 20 years in prison. But prosecutors say that they are not eligible because the entire sentence includes life in prison. The Pittsburgh Press report said Olds and his attorneys want the state Supreme Court to use its King's Bench power, which allows it to consider any case in a lower court "when it sees the need to address an issue of 'immediate public importance,' according to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. The case is, In re: Richard Lee Olds, On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals Appealing from or Awaiting Resentencing Pursuant to Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, Case No. 127-WM-2016 (Pa. Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2016). PILOT FLYING J: Jimmy Haslam Deposed in Fuel Rebate Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Satterfield, writing for Knox News, reports that Pilot Flying J President Jimmy Haslam emerged on Dec. 13 from a daylong deposition in a civil lawsuit over the firm's alleged diesel fuel rebate scam with another denial of any role or knowledge of the fraud to which several subordinates have confessed or are facing indictment. Mr. Haslam, who also owns the NFL's Cleveland Browns, was ordered by an Ohio judge to submit to questioning by attorneys representing three trucking firms that refused to join a class action settlement that Pilot struck with dozens of other such companies after a high-profile raid in April 2013 of the company's headquarters in Knoxville and the resulting indictment of more than a dozen executives and employees, including former Pilot president Mark Hazelwood. The deposition spanned eight hours and took place at a Pilot conference center in Alcoa. It was not public. Attorney Chip Cooper, who represents two of the trucking companies, said Mr. Haslam is shielding a transcript of the deposition from the public. "Regrettably, we can't discuss the substance of Mr. Haslam's testimony," Mr. Cooper said. "We can't discuss it because Mr. Haslam insisted that his testimony be sealed and therefore shielded from public view. We plan to address this with the court in Ohio, and we encourage the press to do the same." Both Mr. Haslam and his attorney A.B. Culvahouse issued a statement on Dec. 13 lambasting the three trucking firms and vowing Mr. Haslam's innocence. They did not address the shield request. "Our client openly and truthfully answered their questions," Mr. Culvahouse said. "This entire exercise was nothing more than an effort by the plaintiffs to harass the company into a windfall settlement." Mr. Haslam has denied any role in the scheme, in which the FBI alleges Pilot and its staffers tricked unsophisticated trucking companies into believing they were receiving discounts on diesel fuel much greater than the amounts they actually received. The FBI has said in court records the scam netted the firm millions. Pilot's board of directors agreed to settle both the criminal case pending against the company itself and the class-action litigation, paying out a total of $179 million. In his statement, Mr. Haslam again denied knowing what his underlings were up to. "I wish I could discuss this entire matter freely with you and answer your questions as I did the plaintiffs," he said in the statement. "I can't do that yet, but I want you to know I appreciate your interest and look forward to the time when I can. This is my home and home to our family business. We continue to value the support of this community and our relationship with so many friends." Ten Pilot staffers, most of them sales executives, have pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in U.S. District Court in Knoxville in connection with the scheme. Eight executives, including Hazelwood, were indicted earlier this year. All have pleaded not guilty. A trial is set for next summer. There are two hearings set in that case. It is common for parties in civil lawsuits to undergo depositions in which opposing counsel is allowed to ask questions but the person being deposed is accompanied by a lawyer who advises the client through the process. What made Mr. Haslam's deposition in the Ohio case unusual is that any statements he made could be used by federal prosecutors. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Knoxville has steadfastly declined to comment on the status of the probe against Mr. Haslam. Three trucking companies who are pursuing their own lawsuit against Pilot -- FSI Express Inc., of Columbus, Ohio; HB Logistics of Birmingham, Ala.; and Wright Transportation of Mobile, Ala. -- contend Pilot is shortchanging them in its class-action settlement and lying about Haslam's knowledge of the scheme. RCS RECOVERY: Faces "Matos" Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCS Recovery Services, LLC. The case is styled as Erika Matos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RCS Recovery Services, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and Gladstone Law Group, a Florida for profit corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00903-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John E. Steele. RCS Recovery Services provides debt recovery solutions to the default mortgage industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Alaimo, Esq. Viles & Beckman, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334 3933 Facsimile: (239) 334 7105 E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com REMINGTON ARMS: Connecticut Supreme Court to Hear Sandy Hook Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Storace, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that the Connecticut Supreme Court is bypassing a lower court to hear an appeal from several families whose loved ones were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, and who are trying to sue the manufacturers of the gun used. The Nov. 29 decision by the high court comes two weeks after nine families of the victims and a survivor appealed a Superior Court judge's dismissal of the case. In October, Fairfield District Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted motions from gun manufacturers Remington Arms Co. and Bushmaster Firearms to dismiss the complaint, which was attempting to hold them liable for the shooting that left 20 children and six educators dead. Joshua Koskoff, one of the attorneys representing the families, said on Dec. 1 that "we are very pleased this case was taken by the [high] court so expeditiously. I think the case speaks for itself." Mr. Koskoff, who is affiliated with the Bridgeport-based law firm of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, added, "At the end of the day, we believe the laws are applied with fundamental fairness and equity in mind. We believe strongly in the legitimacy of our claims. They are well founded. We are asking for the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at this case. All the families have ever asked for is their day in court." In her decision to dismiss, Judge Bellis wrote, in part, "The allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law, nor do they come within [the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act]'s definition of negligent entrustment." The law, according to Judge Bellis, broadly prohibits lawsuits against gun makers, distributors, dealers and importers from harm caused by the criminal misuse of their firearms. Mr. Koskoff said the last meaningful decision under the law was an automobile case during the 1930s. "The laws are not frozen in time and are not static," Mr. Koskoff said. "The law is dynamic and it has to apply to contemporaneous issues and technologies. This issue has never been resolved by the Appellate Courts, and the Supreme Court is really where it belongs." The families' appeal also stated that the high court should determine and decipher the true meaning of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which has many interpretations. That law, in essence, states that "any person" who suffers an "ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by CUTPA may bring an action to recover actual damages." Mr. Koskoff has maintained that the gun manufacturers bear responsibility because "they profit and market aggressively and irresponsibly these assault weapons, which were designed for the men and women in uniform to see in battle." The families first sued Remington and others in Connecticut Superior Court in 2014, alleging the companies shared liability for the deaths of those gunned down by Adam Lanza. Mr. Lanza used a Remington Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. The plaintiffs allege that Remington sold the weapon to the distributor, Camfour, which in turn sold the rifle to the gun shop, Riverview Sales, which then sold the gun to Mr. Lanza's mother. Camfour and Riverview are listed as defendants along with Remington and Bushmaster. Riverview has since gone out of business. Attorneys representing Camfour, Riverview, Remington and Bushmaster did not return calls on Dec. 1. ROTI RESTAURANTS: Prints Too Many CC Digits on Receipts, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that Roti Restaurants, a Chicago-based chain specializing in fast, fresh Mediterranean-style food, has been served with a class action lawsuit, alleging the chain prints too many digits from its customers' credit and debit cards on receipts. On Dec. 16, plaintiffs Cooper Lindner and Kim Smith filed their complaint in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging Roti's practice of printing the first six digits and the last four digits of a customer's 16-digit card number violates federal law. The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Karl G. Leinberger -- karl@markleinlaw.com -- and Paul Markoff -- paul@markleinlaw.com -- of the firm of Markoff Leinberger LLC, of Chicago. Roti operates 13 restaurants in Chicago and the suburbs, and other locations in and around Washington, D.C. The lawsuit centers on Roti's purported practice, since at least July 2014, of printing more than five digits from customers' credit and debit card numbers on their receipts. The lawsuit noted the plaintiffs believe the practice violates the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which mandated retailers and restaurants truncate customers' credit and debit card numbers to no more than five digits on customer receipts, out of fear the printed numbers could assist identity thieves. According to the lawsuit, each of the named plaintiffs purchased food at Roti restaurants in July 2016 and each of their receipts included the first six digits and the last four digits of their card numbers. The lawsuit alleged Roti should have been aware, as of July 28, 2014, of the federal credit and debit card number truncation requirements, as, at that time, Visa, Mastercard and other credit card companies notified merchants in writing of the requirements. The complaint asks the court to expand the lawsuit to include a class of additional plaintiffs to potentially include anyone who bought a meal at Roti restaurants and paid with a credit or debit card, since July 28, 2014. The complaint asks the court to award statutory damages of up to $1,000 per violation, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Gilligan" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is titled as Claire Gilligan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-09803 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2016). Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori Gwen Feldman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Flr. New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 E-mail: lfeldman@zlk.com SANDERSON FARMS: Khang Law Firm's Securities Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Sanderson Farms, Inc., investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between December 17, 2013 and October 6, 2016 inclusive, are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the December 27, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased shares of Sanderson Farms during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Sanderson Farms made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information. On September 2, 2016, some media outlets reported the filing of an antitrust class action lawsuit against Sanderson Farms and some of its peers for conspiring to manipulate the price of broiler-chickens. Allegedly, in 2008, Sanderson Farms, along with Tyson Foods and several other companies, conspired by sharing proprietary data and reducing production to support prices. On October 4, 2016, a group of consumers filed an antitrust class action complaint against Sanderson Farms and several of its industry peers for violations of the Sherman Act. On October 7, 2016, Pivotal Research downgraded peer company Tyson Foods from "buy" to "sell," due to fears over the class action against the Company and its peers, which it called "powerfully convincing." When this information was disclosed to the public, the stock price of Sanderson Farms declined, causing investors harm. SANOFI: Faces Class Action Over Depakine-Related Birth Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Petrequin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a French association of people affected by an epilepsy drug that caused birth defects launched a class action against pharmaceutical company Sanofi on Dec. 13. APESAC President Marine Martin told The Associated Press that Sanofi now has four months to acknowledge its responsibility before a judge takes up the case. The global drug company has been selling Depakine, the anticonvulsant drug at the center of the class action, in France since 1967. Depakine, which contains sodium valproate, is usually prescribed to treat epilepsy. Sanofi said in an email to the AP that it had received notification of the proceedings. The company declined to comment further. A study revealed by Le Canard Enchaine newspaper found that Depakine was prescribed to more than 10,000 pregnant women in France between 2007 and 2014. Another report published in February estimated that around 450 children in France who were exposed to the drug while in the womb were born with congenital defects. The class action alleges that Sanofi failed to properly inform users about the drug's potential risks for developing fetuses, said Martin, whose association represents about 2,900 families. "We want Sanofi to be condemned because it will be very important for the victims' families," she said. "It would be recognition that they suffered harm." Martin added she is hopeful the class action, which seeks financial compensation, will help the cases of several families who also have filed individual lawsuits against the company. Paris prosecutors opened a preliminary investigation in September. The Depakine case is the first class action to be brought in France dealing with a health issue, a milestone made possible by a new health law that took effect in September. SETERUS INC: Ciolino Seeks Certification of Borrowers Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Ciolino asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action titled PATRICK CIOLINO, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described below v. SETERUS, INC., formerly known as IBM LENDER BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-09247 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Seterus, Inc. The Plaintiff seeks certification of these classes: Class A (automatic PMI termination formula class): All persons (a) whose loans were being serviced by Seterus, (b) who were paying borrower paid private mortgage insurance ("PMI"), (b) at the time they entered into a loan modification; (d) prior to October, 2016. Class B (disclosure/notice class): All persons (a) whose loans were being serviced by Seterus, (b) who were paying borrower paid private mortgage insurance, (b) at the time they entered into a loan modification; (d) within two years of the filing date of this action. The Plaintiff further asks appointment of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2z6Qc5EC The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Tara L. Goodwin, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-3593 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com tgoodwin@edcombs.com The Defendant is represented by: Ralph T. Wutscher, Esq. Charles J. Ochab, Esq. Greg M. Barbakoff, Esq. MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP 105 W. Madison St., 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 416-6170 E-mail: rwutscher@mwbllp.com cochab@mauricewutscher.com gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com SI WIRELESS: Tennessee Woman Sues Over Unwanted Auto Texts ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella at Madison Record reports that a consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against SI Wireless LLC, a telecommunication company, citing alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes. Tennessee resident Andrea Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Dec. 8 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against SI Wireless LLC alleging that the telecommunications company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that because of the defendant's wrongful conduct, she has suffered aggravation, nuisance, and sleep disruption. The plaintiff holds SI Wireless LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly continued sending autodialed text messages to her cellular telephone even after she revoked her consent, and sent texts using an automatic telephone dialing system. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award of injunctive and other equitable relief, actual and statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief that the court deems reasonable and just. She is represented by Jeremy M. Glapion -- jmg@glapionlaw.com -- of The Glapion Law Firm LLC in Wall, New Jersey. SILV COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Strike Kimber's Class Claims Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy S. Black denies the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations in the lawsuit captioned KIMBER BALDWIN DESIGNS, LLC v. SILV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-448 (S.D. Ohio). The Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class and Ohio subclass for: (1) violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act's anti-slamming provision; (2) common law fraud; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) Ohio Telecommunication Fraud. The Defendant argues that Plaintiff's class allegations should be stricken because members of the proposed class lack Article III standing. Among other things, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's class allegations should be stricken because members of the proposed class lack standing under Article III of the Constitution. Judge Black, however, opined that the Defendant's standing argument fails as a matter of law. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/BLzCx1 from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian A. Jenkins, Esq. Robb S. Stokar, Esq. MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA 2712 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 723-1600 Facsimile: (513) 723-1620 E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com - and - Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert Alan Steinberg, Esq. ROBERT STEINBERG CO LPA 9050 Ambercreek Dr. Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 510-5122 Facsimile: (513) 791-7773 - and - Terrence Lee Goodman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE L. GOODMAN, LLC 17 Heritage Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45241 Telephone: (513) 984-3266 E-mail: terrygoodmanlaw@earthlink.net SOLARCITY CORP: Lucero Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOSE ALBINO LUCERO JR., on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. SOLARCITY CORP., Case No. 3:15-cv-05107-RS (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify these classes and subclasses: Autodialer Class: All individuals in the United States who received one or more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp. from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of an automated telephone dialing system. Autodialer Subclass A: All individuals in the United States who received one or more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp. from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of an automated telephone dialing system. Autodialer Subclass B: All individuals in the United States who received one or more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp. from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of an automated telephone dialing system. NDNC Class: All individuals registered on the National Do Not Call Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a 12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where each call was made more than 30 days after registration. NDNC Subclass A: All individuals registered on the National Do Not Call Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a 12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where each call was made more than 30 days after registration, and for whom SolarCity Corp. NDNC Subclass B: All individuals registered on the National Do Not Call Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a 12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where each call was made more than 30 days after registration, and for whom SolarCity Corp. In his complaint, Jose Albino Lucero Jr. alleges that SolarCity Corp. called him and class and subclass members using automatic telephone dialing systems, without their prior express consent, and despite the fact that they are registered on the national Do Not Call list, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Lucero also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Nathan & Associates, APC as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Plaintiff's partially redacted memorandum of points and authorities in support of his Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JnAg9TrI The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 272-7014 Facsimile: (619) 330-1819 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com ST. LOUIS RAMS: McAllister Seeks to Certify FANS Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RONALD McALLISTER v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), moves for certification of these Class and Subclass: FANS Class: All persons or entities who bought one or more PSLs from FANS, Inc. and continued to be PSL owners at the end of the 2015 season. FANS MMPA Subclass: All natural persons who are members of the FANS Class. The MMPA Subclass is limited to natural persons because the MMPA provides for civil actions to recover damages only for persons, who purchase or lease merchandise "primarily for personal, family or household purposes." Excluded from the proposed Class and Subclass are the Defendant, its Members and employees, and employees of any subsidiary, affiliate, successors, or assignees of the Defendant. Also excluded is any trial judge, who may preside over the Case. Mr. McAllister also moves that he be designated as Class Representative and that his attorneys be appointed Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GcbyEdrC The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1720 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com - and - Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq. Ryan L. Bruning, Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 735-8100 Facsimile: (314) 735-8020 E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com aj@bruninglegal.com ryan@bruninglegal.com - and - Mark Goldenberg, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Facsimile: (618) 656-6230 E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com STAAR SURGICAL: Bid to Certify in "Todd" Suit Under Submission -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification is taken under submission in the lawsuit titled Edward Todd v. Staar Surgical Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05263-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.). "The Court hears oral argument from counsel and takes the matter under submission. An order will issue," Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said in a civil minutes. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JnQyXAcN The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Wernke, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: mjwernke@pomlaw.com - and - Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Dan E. Marmalefsky, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: dmarmalefsky@mofo.com - and - Kai S. Bartolomeo, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-2040 Telephone: (858) 720-5100 Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 E-mail: kbartolomeo@mofo.com STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify "Yockey" Suit Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson denies the Plaintiff's second amended motion to certify Fair Labor Standards Act collective action filed in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER A. YOCKEY v. STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. doing business as EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS, Case No. 2:15-cv-00411-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind.). Mr. Yockey was employed by Express as a temporary worker and assigned to the ADS, Inc. facility in Brazil, Indiana. He initiated this litigation on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that Express violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. He contends that Express failed to compensate its employees for earned overtime by improperly rounding time entries; automatically deducting 30-minute meal breaks when employees did not clock out and back in for lunch; and deducting 30 minutes for meal breaks, even when those breaks lasted for 20 minutes or less. In her order, Judge Magnus-Stinson opined that Mr. Yockey has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy even the lenient standard at the notice stage of certification. "Even assuming Mr. Yockey has established that he was subject to improper timekeeping practices, he has not provided adequate evidence that his proposed class members were all subject to a common policy or practice that violated the FLSA," Judge Magnus-Stinson stated. Mr. Yockey's request that the Court order notice is denied as moot. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties to address the possibility of an agreed resolution, or to establish a revised case management plan as to Mr. Yockey's individual claim. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/3l3CJ0 from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Hunt, Esq. HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: hunt@huntlawfirm.net The Defendant is represented by: John A. Drake, Esq. John Kenyon Henning, IV, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 111 Monument Circle, Suite 4600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 916-1300 E-mail: john.drake@ogletreedeakins.com john.henning@ogletreedeakins.com SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Jan. 3 Lead Plaintiff Date in Khang-Filed Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Supreme Industries Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between July 22, 2016 and October 21, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the January 3, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you purchased Supreme Industries shares during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com -- There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Supreme Industries made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the backlog figure from the third quarter of 2015 was a result of the timing of many large orders placed in that quarter; that the backlog figure for the third quarter of 2016 would not be close to the backlog figure of the third quarter of 2015; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 21, 2016, Supreme Industries announced its third quarter backlog of truck sales declined 22% from the third quarter 2015. On October 22, 2016, Cliffside Research published a report discussing the unexpected third quarter backlog decline and heavy insider selling through 2016. When this information was revealed to the public, the value of Supreme fell, causing investors harm. SYNGENTA: June 2017 Trial Scheduled in GMO Corn Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Nebraska Rural Radio Association reports that a class-action lawsuit against Syngenta regarding rejected exports is likely to head to trial next year, as scheduled. Online publication Agri- Pulse reports the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review a lower court's certification order, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Syngenta called the appeals court ruling "one step in a long process." Multiple classes of farmers within the lawsuit are suing the company because a Syngenta biotech corn trait unapproved for export to China that was found in export cargos allegedly pushed corn prices lower in 2013. Lawyers for the farmers included in the lawsuit estimate the farmers lost between $5 billion and $7 billion in revenue because China stopped importing U.S. corn at the time. The nationwide class involved in the lawsuit is set for trial in June of 2017. SYNGENTA AG: "Stracener" Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled as Hunter Stracener, Robert Curtis and Ronald Curtis, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, and Syngenta Seeds LLC, Case No. 43CV-16-00686, was removed from the Lonoke County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00913-JM to the proceeding. Syngenta AG is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis Agribusiness and Zeneca Agrochemicals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Johnson & Vines, PLLC 2226 Cottondale, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: 372 1300 E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com The Defendants are represented by Chad W. Pekron, Esq. Joseph Wayne Price, II, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Telephone: (501) 379 1700 E-mail: cpekron@qgtb.com jprice@qgtb.com SYNGENTA AG: Faces Triple K Suit in South Dakota District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syngenta AG. The case is captioned Triple K Farms and John Schneider, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-04174-RAL (D.S.D., Dec. 20, 2016). Syngenta AG is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis Agribusiness and Zeneca Agrochemicals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael T. Andrews, Esq. ANDERSON, BOTTRELL, SANDEN & THOMPSON 4132 30th Avenue South, Suite 100 Fargo, ND 58104 Telephone: (701) 235 3300 Facsimile: (701) 237 3154 E-mail: mandrews@vogellaw.com The Defendants are represented by Talbot J. Wieczorek, Esq. GUNDERSON, PALMER, NELSON & ASHMORE, LLP PO Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709-8045 Telephone: 342 1078 Facsimile: 342 0480 E-mail: tjw@gpnalaw.com TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Action Among Ousted Director's Options -------------------------------------------------------------- Manoj Kumar, writing for First Post, reports that Tata Sons managed to oust Cyrus Mistry as a director at Tata Consultancy Services Ltd's extraordinary general meeting on Dec. 13 solely by virtue of its 73 percent stake in India's largest IT services company. About 86.71 percent of the total shareholders voted out whom 93 percent voted in favour of Mr. Mistry's removal. However, a closer inspection of the voting pattern reveals that 43 percent of institutional investor votes and 78 percent of retail investor votes were against the resolution. Further, Tata Sons has increased its stake in the six remaining listed companies to bolster its chances of securing a favorable vote against Mr. Mistry. Its inability to operate in a more democratic manner has left it open to attack from minority shareholders. Mr. Mistry can rally shareholders from the listed companies to join Shapoorji Pallonji to file a case against the Tata Group for the oppression of minority shareholders under Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956 find their genesis in Section 210 of the English Companies Act of 1948. Prior to this enactment, shareholders of companies in England had no right to complain of oppression or mismanagement unless the case fell within any of the three recognised exceptions to the famous case - - Foss vs Harbottle. The only remedy available to shareholders at the time was to apply for the winding up of a company on the ground that it was just and equitable to do so. The terms -- oppression and mismanagement -- are not defined in the 1956 Act. Sections 397-398 of the 1956 Act set out the remedies in respect of certain complaints against the management of the affairs of company. Under 397, members of the company can file a petition in the Company Law Board on a complaint that the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to certain members. Section 398 provides remedies for members if, among other things, a material change in the management or control of the company (such as the removal of a director) is likely to result in the affairs of the company being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the company. This provision was brought about by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. According to the dictionary, oppression is any act exercised in a manner burdensome, harsh and wrongful. It suggests a lack of probity and fair dealing in the affairs of a company to the prejudice of some portion of its members. The Supreme Court has held that it must be shown that the acts of the majority shareholders were oppressive to the minority members. In the exercise of powers, the CLB and the courts are under a duty to see that democratic functioning of the company in managing its affairs is ensured. The recent allotment of extra shares to boost Tata Sons' stake in the assorted listed companies can be scrutinised and proved to be oppressive to the minority shareholders interest. Another option available to Mr. Mistry is Section 245 of CA 2013 provides for class action to be instituted against the company as well as the auditors of the company. The Draft Companies Rules allow for this class action to be filed by the minority shareholders under Clause 16.1 of Chapter-XVI (Number of members who can file an application for class action). On close reading of Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013, it can be seen that the intent of the section is not only to empower the minority shareholder and/or members of the company but also the depositors. Unlike Section 399 of CA 1956 which provides for protection to only shareholder/members of the company, Section 245 of CA 2013 also extends this protection to the class of depositors as well. However, in the current scenario, the provision of representation of a class of members or depositors by a particular member or depositor lacks clarity. Sub-section (1) of Section 245 provides, "such number of member or members, depositor or depositors or any class of them, as the case may be, as are indicated in sub-section (2) may, if they are of the opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members or depositors, file an application before the Tribunal on behalf of the members or depositors for seeking all or any of the following orders . . .". Besides, there being a typographical error in this sub- section (1) with respect to indicating sub-section (2) instead of sub- section (3) which provides for the minimum number of members who can apply for class action there is also some confusion as to the class on whose behalf such class action can be instituted. While 'member has been defined in the CA 2013 as including the subscriber to the memorandum of the company, shareholders and person whose name is entered in the register of members; definition for depositor is not provided under CA 2013. Further, section 245 does not empower the Tribunal with discretionary power to admit/allow any class suit wherein class of members or depositors are unable to comply with the minimum number of members/depositors requirement to be laid down in the Companies Rules. Also, on a close reading of Section 241 and Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013, we can find duplication in protection provided to the members in case affairs of the company are conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company/members. The balance of consideration, however, still lies in Tata Sons' favour as the burden of proof lies solely with Mr. Mistry and the minority shareholders. Whatever the outcome, there is no doubt that this fracas has deflected investor interest in the salt-to- steel conglomerate. TRANSCARE CORP: Eisenstadt vs. Patriarch Goes to Bankruptcy Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Eisenstadt v. Patriarch Partners LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-2831 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate three purported class action cases, including the Eisenstadt Case. Judge Ramos granted instead the defendants' motion to refer the cases to the Bankruptcy Court. Patriarch Partners, a private equity fund, owns TransCare Corporation, which filed its bankruptcy petition on February 24, 2016. The Eisenstadt Case is referred to the Bankruptcy Court as an adversary case and assigned Case No. 16-01282-smb. The Eisenstadt Case was brought under federal and state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act against Patriarch Partners and its affiliates, and Lynn Tilton alleging that they fired their employees without the required 60-day notice. Plaintiff Warren Eisenstadt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Brian Ershowsky, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Christopher James Kupka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: mershowsky@zlk.com ek@zlk.com ckupka@zlk.com Defendant Patriarch Partners LLC is represented by: Allan S. Bloom, Esq. Nayirie Kuyumjian, Esq. Kathleen M. McKenna, Esq. Andrew Evan Rice, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-4001 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: abloom@proskauer.com nkuyumjian@proskauer.com kmckenna@proskauer.com arice@proskauer.com UBER TECH: Sued for Double Charging in "Instant Pay" Feature ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that an Uber driver has dropped off a class action lawsuit against the ride-sharing giant, alleging Uber has taken double in fees what they said they would from drivers who use a new instant payment option to cash out the money they earn from the rides they provide. On Dec. 19, plaintiff Jamie Whirl filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Uber Technologies, arguing the company should be made to pay for charging drivers $1 for withdrawing their money under the company's "Instant Pay" feature, when the company allegedly told drivers it would charge only 50 cents per transaction. The lawsuit, brought through attorneys with the firm of Krislov & Associates, of Chicago, asks the judge to expand the case to also include all other Uber drivers who have used the Instant Pay system to get paid. Earlier in 2016, Uber's CEO had asserted more than 450,000 drivers across the U.S. access Uber's ride-sharing app every month. The lawsuit centers on Uber's rollout of the Instant Pay feature on its driver app, which allows drivers to instantly access their pay, rather than wait for a weekly direct deposit to their bank account. Drivers are allowed up to five such Instant Pay withdrawals per day. According to the complaint, Uber had told drivers they could either obtain an Uber-branded debit card or it would charge 50 cents per Instant Pay withdrawal to use the feature. However, the lawsuit alleged Uber instead would charge such drivers 50 cents at the time of withdrawal, but then tack on another 50 cent charge on the back end of the transaction, at times leaving a negative balance on the driver's Uber account. Whirl, who said in her complaint she has driven for Uber since mid-2015 and has used the Instant Pay feature since it was unveiled in 2016, said she has complained of the overcharge to Uber on multiple occasions. She said Uber has at times refunded some of her money, amounting to $5.50 in refunds. "However Plaintiff has been overcharged much more than a total of $5.50," the complaint said. "Moreover, Defendans (Uber) has not stopped taking $1 per withdrawal, nor has it updated its disclosures to drivers to inform them that it actually charges $1 per withdrawal." The lawsuit alleges Uber breached its contract with its drivers and has violated Illinois consumer fraud laws and consumer protection laws in other states. The lawsuit asks the court to order Uber to repay the alleged overcharges to drivers, and pay unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees. UGU: Local Families Mull Class Action Over Water Debacle -------------------------------------------------------- Judi Davis, writing for South Coast Herald, reports that a group of South Coasters is so angry about the water debacle, when striking Ugu employees turned off their taps, that they are considering a mass lawsuit against the district municipality. An emailed petition is now doing the rounds with the authors requesting that local families contribute R100 to raise the R750 000 they would need to instigate a class action suit against the district municipality regarding employees "criminal behavior" that resulted in the "loss of human rights". It points out that residents had to go days without water and had to spend precious time and money to obtain it. The authors also claim that putting patients' lives at risk by cutting hospital water supplies was nothing less that criminal conduct. "The petition objects to the municipality's 'lack of foresight for not being prepared for such a disaster', claiming there had been no disaster plan in place and that the district municipality had lacked the ability to 'safeguard water plants against criminal conduct" It also calls for a private investigation into Ugu's financial affairs. "R750 000 will enable us to take this matter further, to have this matter audited, to get the real reason behind the water disaster, to bring a civil suit and to investigate the laying of criminal charges," the petition reads. VALVE CORP: "G.G." Suit Moved from King County Court to W.D. Wash ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled G.G., A.L., and B.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Valve Corporation, a Washington corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 16-00002-28798-1-SEA, was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01941 to the proceeding. Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital distribution company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T Dennett, Esq. Kim D Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS 1700 Seventh Ave., Ste 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682 5600 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by Gavin William Skok, Esq. James Harlan Wendell, Esq. RIDDELL WILLIAMS 1001 4th Ave Plaza, Ste 4500 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 624 3600 Facsimile: (206) 389 1708 E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com jwendell@riddellwilliams.com - and - Sarah E Joye, Esq. Williams Kastner (Sea) Two Union Square 601 Union Street, STE 4100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 628 6600 E-mail: sjoye@williamskastner.com VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Faces "Polizois" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vengroff Williams, Inc. The case is captioned as Fotini Polizois, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vengroff Williams, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-07011-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bianco. Vengroff Williams provides receivables management and business process outsourcing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 335 1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net The Defendant is represented by Richard J. Perr, Esq. FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. Ten Penn Center, Suite 1100 1801 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 893 9300 Facsimile: (215) 893 8719 E-mail: rperr@finemanlawfirm.com WAWA INC: Pfeifer Wants to Certify Class of Plan Participants ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Pfeifer and Andrew Dorley move the Court for an order determining that the claims in their lawsuit entitled GREG PFEIFER and ANDREW DORLEY v. WAWA, INC., RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF WAWA, INC., JARED G. CULOTTA, MICHAEL J. ECKHARDT, JAMES MOREY, CATHERINE PULOS, HOWARD B. STOECKEL, DOROTHY SWARTZ, RICHARD D. WOOD, JR. and KEVIN WIGGINS and WAWA, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 2:16-cv-00497-PD (E.D. Pa.), be certified and maintained as a class action. The Plaintiffs brought the action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of themselves and this Class: All persons who were Terminated Employee Participants in the ESOP as of January 1, 2015 with account balances greater than $5,000 and the beneficiaries of such participants and any Alternate Payees whose stock in the Wawa Plan was liquidated pursuant to 2015 Amendment (i.e. Plan Amendment No. 4) ("Class"). Excluded from the Class are the Defendant Trustees and members of the Defendant Committee and their immediate families; the officers and directors of Defendant Wawa and their immediate families; and legal representatives, successors, heirs, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Greg Pfeifer, Andrew Dorley, and Michael DiLoreto as Class Representatives, and appoint Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, and Donahoo & Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mUwKLjes The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. Jamie Bowers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-3964 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com jbowers@cohenmilstein.com - and - Raymond M. Sarola, Esq. Gary L. Azorsky, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 3 Logan Square, 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 479 5700 Facsimile: (267) 479-5701 E-mail: rsarola@cohenmilstein.com gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 383 4th Street, Suite 201 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com - and - Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 440 W. First Street, Suite 101 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 953-1010 Facsimile: (714) 953-1777 E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian T. Ortelere, Esq. Andrew Napier, Esq. Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963-5150 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com andrew.napier@morganlewis.com jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com - and - David I. Monteiro, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 466-4000 E-mail: david.monteiro@morganlewis.com WCI COMMUNITIES: February 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Dec. 13 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division, on behalf of holders of WCI Communities, Inc. ("WCI") common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of WCI by Lennar Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries ("Lennar") announced on September 22, 2016 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against WCI, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Lennar, is captioned Parshall v. WCI Communities, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv- 00846-JES-CM (M.D. Fla.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/wci- communities-inc-wcic/. On September 22, 2016, WCI entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Lennar. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Lennar will acquire WCI, and WCI shareholders will receive $11.75 in cash and a fraction of a share of Lennar Class A common stock valued at $11.75 for each share of WCI that they own (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on November 10, 2016, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Registration Statement, which recommends that WCI stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to the process and events leading up to the Proposed Transaction, the opinions and analyses of WCI's financial advisors, and potential conflicts of interest. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of WCI common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts throughout the United States. WELLS FARGO: General Counsel Delays Retirement Amid Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that Wells Fargo & Co general counsel James Strother, who planned to retire at the end of this year, will stay on indefinitely as top lawyer in order to deal with the aftermath of the bank's recent fake accounts scandal. Mr. Strother turned 65 earlier this year, triggering the company's mandatory age-based retirement policy for members of the operating committee. "In light of recent events, the decision has been made to have Jim Strother remain with the company and continue to serve as our general counsel, and Jim has agreed to do so," Peter Gilchrist, a Wells Fargo spokesman, said in a statement. "A search is commencing for his successor," Mr. Gilchrist added. Wells Fargo has come under fire for opening more than 1.5 million customer bank accounts and applying for up to 565,000 customer credit cards from 2011 through 2015 without permission from customers. In September, the banking giant reached a record- setting $185 million settlement with state and federal regulators. The bank said it has fired 5,300 people in relation to the scandal. And in October, it was announced that chief executive John Stumpf would step down immediately to be replaced by chief operating officer Tim Sloan. The company is also facing lawsuits from both former employees and customers. Mr. Strother has been Wells Fargo's general counsel since 2003. He was heavily involved in Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia Corp. in 2008 and more recently advised on the multibillion-dollar purchases of assets and businesses from General Electric Co.'s financial unit. Mr. Strother previously served as the company's deputy general counsel and before that, executive vice president, GC and secretary of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. An internal policy at the San Francisco-based bank would ordinarily mean that Mr. Strother has to retire at the end of this year. However, as Reuters points out, the company has made exceptions to this rule in extraordinary circumstances. For example, when then-Chairman Richard Kovacevich postponed his retirement during the financial crisis for more than a year. * 5th Cir. Grants Expedited Hearing in DOL's OT Rule Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an expedited hearing for the Department of Labor in litigation over new overtime regulations. The Labor Department is seeking a hearing in its effort to overturn a trial court's ruling halting the Obama administration's proposed regulatory revisions that would have doubled for most employees the salary proposed threshold for overtime pay. Those rules were halted from taking effect on Dec. 1. The appellate court ordered that oral arguments will be scheduled after Jan. 31, 2017, 11 days after President-elect Donald Trump is set to be inaugurated. For lawyers advising employers, that timing prompts questions, with speculation that the Labor Department under Trump may drop the appeal. "Bottom line for employers is unfortunately much uncertainty," Doug Diaz -- ddiaz@archerlaw.com -- a partner with Archer in Haddonfield, New Jersey, wrote in an email. "In the event the appeal is successful and the overtime rule is enforced retroactively, employers may be liable for overtime to those employees classified as exempt from overtime under the current rules, but not under the new rule," Mr. Diaz wrote. "At a minimum, employers should therefore keep accurate records of hours worked and ideally, if possible, limit overtime until there is more clarity, in order to reduce any potential exposure in the event of a successful appeal," Mr. Diaz added. On Nov. 22, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant, who presides in a Sherman, Texas, courtroom, granted Texas and other states their request for a preliminary injunction to halt the Obama administration's proposed regulatory revisions, which had been scheduled to become effective Dec. 1. Judge Mazzant, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2014, granted the preliminary injunction, siding with the 21 states challenging the new overtime rules. The Texas- led coalition established "a prima facie case" that some of the Labor Department's proposed changes were without statutory authority, Judge Mazzant wrote. The Labor Department had estimated the rule changes would, if implemented, expand overtime coverage to more than 4 million additional workers. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay their nonexempt employees time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours per week if the employees make less than $23,660 per year. But under the proposed revision of the FLSA regulations, more employees would have gotten this mandatory overtime, as the exempt salary threshold will be raised to $47,476. * AARP Supports DOL Fiduciary Rule's Class Action Provision ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the AARP has long supported the Labor Department's fiduciary rule, but the group's latest court filing has a new twist: It specifically praises the way the rule protects a person's right to bring litigation. In a proposed amicus brief filed Dec. 9, the AARP and six other groups thoroughly defended how the fiduciary rule discourages investment advisers from forcing clients to sign contracts waiving the right to bring a class action. This provision is just "one among several steps" the federal government has taken to "curb companies' efforts to shield themselves from class actions through the fine print," the brief contends (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Perez , D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-HB, proposed amicus brief filed 12/9/16). The AARP has filed briefs in each of the pending lawsuits challenging the DOL's fiduciary rule. Unlike the comprehensive briefs filed in Washington, D.C., Texas and Kansas, the AARP's latest brief focuses specifically on the rule's class action provision, which critics say violates the Federal Arbitration Act by disfavoring private arbitration as a means to resolve disputes. The fiduciary rule, which purports to cut down on allegedly conflicted advice given to retirement savers by the financial industry, allows advisers to avoid some of the rule's most stringent requirements if they refrain from requiring clients to sign class action waivers. Fraternal benefit society Thrivent Financial for Lutherans challenges the legality of this provision, which the society says will force it to lose its "fraternal character" by giving up its signature alternative dispute resolution program. In defending the fiduciary rule's class action provision, the AARP cited a recent study on forced arbitration by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. According to the AARP, the report found that class action waivers don't channel claims to a "better, faster, cheaper system of dispute resolution." Rather, they "suppress claims altogether" and "immunize companies from accountability," the AARP alleged. The fiduciary rule, which has survived two legal challenges in the run-up to its April 2017 applicability date, faces an uncertain future under President-elect Donald Trump. While Mr. Trump hasn't personally commented on the rule, it's been singled out for repeal by Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci. Mr. Trump's recent pick for Labor Secretary, fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder, has also remained silent on the rule. The AARP's brief -- which hasn't yet been accepted by the court -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by Gupta Wessler PLLC and Teske Micko Katz Kitzer & Rochel PLLP. The groups signing onto the AARP brief include: AARP Foundation, the American Association for Justice, Americans for Financial Reform, Better Markets Inc., Consumer Federation of America and the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association. * Bank Biometric Authentication May Spark Consumer Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel R. Stoller, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Apple Inc. introduced finger print authentication for its iPhone 5s in September 2013. Although not the first mobile device or application to use biometric authentication, it was one of the most successful smartphone manufacturers to implement use of such technology. Financial institutions, online retailers and other applications have used similar biometric identifiers to prove the identity of the consumer trying to access the product. With the growing rate of cyberattacks and data breaches across the U.S., it would be hard to find a consumer who sees the expansion of biometric identification as a negative and intrusive loss of personal privacy. However, some consumers across the country have fought back against companies that have allegedly taken biometric data without consent and stored such data on servers. Recently, Facebook Inc. has been embroiled in class litigation in California over the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA). Biometric data refers to fingerprints, DNA and other often physiological characteristics that can be used to identify a human being. Under the Illinois biometrics law no private entity may obtain or otherwise collect a person's "biometric identifier or biometric information" unless it informs the subject in writing that the information is being stored; informs the subject about "the specific purpose and length of term" of use; and receives express written authorization to use that information. The class action is still ongoing. Even with the potential class action litigation risks, banks and financial institutions are using biometric technology to help secure their mobile banking applications. Recently, Citigroup Inc., the parent of Citibank NA, launched a new functionality for its Citi Mobile App for iPhone that include "enhanced log-in choices" including fingerprint, voice, facial recognition and personal identification numbers (PIN), the bank said in a recent statement. The statement didn't go into the specifics of the data use, collection and storage capabilities but one could imagine that the company would have to store at least the basic biometric data to authenticate users to use the app. Hopefully, Citibank included consent provisions and other consumer protection provisions in their privacy policies. Otherwise, the large New York-based bank may also face consumer class actions. * CFPB Sued for Not Releasing Arbitration Rulemaking Records ------------------------------------------------------------ Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the conservative Cause of Action Institute is suing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for refusing to release the documents it used in drafting a rule that would ban the use of forced arbitration clauses in financial contracts. "The purpose of the [Freedom of Information Act] is to keep government agencies like CFPB transparent so that policymakers and the public can evaluate the merits of an agency action," the group said in its complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 13. The rule the CFPB proposed in May keeps companies from including clauses in contracts that make it harder for consumers to sue. Forced arbitration clauses, often slipped into the fine print, bar consumers from joining class-action lawsuits or suing on their own. Instead, the clauses force consumers to resolve disputes on alleged abusive practices or unjustified fees, for example, through privately appointed individuals or an arbitrator -- often chosen by the company. The group said the proposed new anti-arbitration rule is likely to subject numerous financial institutions to a flood of class action lawsuits, further burdening the courts. "To issue a regulation affecting such a vast swath of the economy, and then attempt to conceal the bulk of the documents reflecting how that decision was made from public view, violates the law and the American people's right to know," the John Vecchione, vice president of the Cause of Action Institute, said in a statement. The group is asking the court to order CFPB to produce all records and the portions of records that are being withheld and force CFPB to reimburse its attorney fees. * Connecticut Supreme Court May Re-Invent Design Defect Law ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy H. D'Amico, Esq. -- jeremy@damicopettinicchi.com -- and Michael A. D'Amico, Esq., of D'Amico and Pettinicchi, in an article for The Connecticut Law Tribune, report that for over half a century, Connecticut product liability law has been premised on strict liability. See Garthwait v. Burgio, 153 Conn. 284, 289 (1965) (holding manufacturer culpable even when it "has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of [its] product"). Manufacturers are in a better position than the injured party to design their products safely and absorb the cost of injury. The Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Izarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., released early in 2016, reaffirmed this keystone of product liability jurisprudence when the court held that the modified consumer expectation test is the primary test for design defect claims. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. 172, 193 (2016) (setting forth the standards "for a strict product liability action based on defective design generally . . ."). Despite this long-standing principle, the court is now considering whether it should abandon its strict product liability premise for design defect claims, and replace it with section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which requires the plaintiff to prove the manufacturer's foreseeability of harm, and prove the effectiveness of a reasonable alternative design. See Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (See FEDB-CV-060001768-S http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/AppealNoInq.aspx(Connecticut Supreme Court docket for Bifolck); see also Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec. 2(b) (Am. Law Inst. 1998)). Nineteen years earlier, the court held that a plaintiff should not be required to present evidence of a reasonable alternative design to prevail in a design defect case. Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 (1997). The sound public policy upon which this precedent rests remains unchanged, and as manufacturers increasingly develop products that operate beyond the common understanding of the ordinary consumer, strict product liability remains necessary to protect the rights of injured consumers. Adopting section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) will fundamentally alter Connecticut's design defect product liability law by turning the focus of the jury away from the dangerous nature of the product itself, and towards the conduct of the manufacturer in designing the product. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 221-22 ("In weighing a product's risks against its utility, the focus of the jury should be on the product itself, and not on the conduct of the manufacturer.") The court's decisions in Potter and Izarelli thoroughly discuss the history of product liability law in Connecticut and its strict liability origins. See Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199, 207-15 (1997); Izarelli, 321 Conn. 184-93; see also Douglas A. Kysar, "The Expectations of Consumers," 103 Colum. L. Rev. 1700 (2003) (reviewing the development of product liability law). The public policy behind strict product liability law is entrenched in the theory that the manufacturer is in the best position to protect against the harm caused by its products. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 209 (citing Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 461 (1944) (stating the public policy of strict liability includes "(1) manufacturers could readily absorb or pass on the cost of liability to consumers as a cost of doing business; (2) manufacturers would be deterred from marketing defective products; and (3) injured persons, who lack familiarity with the manufacturing process, would no longer shoulder the burden of proving negligence.") Public policy recognizes that a manufacturer cannot feasibly design every danger out of the product. But the compromise in allowing a manufacturer to sell a product that may cause harm is that the manufacturer be held responsible for the harms that are caused by unreasonably dangerous products, regardless of foreseeability. Connecticut adopted Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1965, expanding liability of product sellers from those in privity with the manufacturer to any person injured by an "unreasonably dangerous" product. Garthwait v. Burgio, 153 Conn. 284, 289 (1965); see also Harmon v. Digliani, 148 Conn. 710, 718 (1961). A manufacturer is not liable for all injuries caused by its products, but only those injuries caused by a product that is unreasonably dangerous. A product is unreasonably dangerous when it is "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A cmt. i (Am. Law Inst. 1965). Section 402A laid the framework for the court's adoption of the "consumer expectation test" used to determine product seller liability. The consumer expectation test requires plaintiffs to prove: (1) The defendant was engaged in the business of selling the product; (2) The product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or user; (3) The defect caused the injury for which compensation was sought; (4) The defect existed at the time of the sale, and; (5) The product was expected to and did reach the consumer without substantial change in condition. (Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 184-85 (citing Giglio v. Conn. Light & Power Co., 180 Conn. 230, 234 (1980)); see also Rossignol v. Danbury School of Aeronautics, 154 Conn. 549, 561-62 (1967)). The consumer expectation test adopted by the court and espoused in the Restatement (Second) was developed at a time when product liability law primarily involved manufacturing defect claims. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 187-88. In manufacturing defect cases, a consumer's expectations of the "defective" product can be compared against the other "non-defective" products sold by the manufacturer. Generally, a consumer expects a product to be manufactured as the manufacturer intended and in conformance with the rest of the product line. Strict product liability in manufacturing defect claims incentivizes manufacturers to develop robust quality control systems to ensure its products are safe and operate as intended before entering the stream of commerce. Strict product liability in design defect cases serves as strong a role in incentivizing manufacturers to design safe products. Arguably, it is a stronger incentive. A manufacturer can have 100% quality control, but if the design of the product is unreasonably safe, no amount of quality control will protect the consuming public. But criticism emerged that the consumer expectation test was ill-suited for design defect claims. See Id. at 199-200 (citation omitted) ("[a]lthough the consumer expectations standard was conventionally viewed as more protective to plaintiffs than the risk-utility standard, it now is clear that courts have used the consumer expectations test most frequently to deny recovery to plaintiffs in cases involving obvious design hazards.") The court noted that the consumer expectation test may pose difficulties for the plaintiff because "one could not simply compare the defective product to others in the product line to make an objective assessment of the consumer's expectations of the product." Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 188. An example of a narrow reading of the consumer expectation test illustrates this concern. Consider the court's example of a table saw sold without a safety guard. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 202. If all table saws sold by every manufacturer were made without a guard, then a strict interpretation of the consumer expectation test would likely preclude a claim for injuries caused by the spinning blade. As the safety expectations of ordinary consumers regarding dangerousness are shaped by "ordinary knowledge common to the community," the dangers associated with a visible spinning blade may not be considered "unreasonable." See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 199 ("In many instances manufacturers have been absolved from liability when an obvious danger caused serious injury, even though that injury could have been averted by a design modification that would not have added significantly to the cost of the product or impaired its usefulness.") (citation omitted). In reiterating the public policy of protecting consumers and incentivizing manufacturers to design safe products discussed in Potter, the court in Izarelli made clear that the "modified consumer expectation test" is the primary test for design defect claims. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 211 ("[I]t would be contrary to the public policy of this state to . . . immunize a manufacturer from liability for manipulating the inherently dangerous properties of its product to pose a greater risk of danger to the consumer.") While the modified consumer expectation test is the primary test for design defect claims, the consumer expectation test remains an option for plaintiffs when a "product failed to meet the ordinary consumer's minimum safety expectations, such as res ipsa type cases." Id. at 194; see also Id. at 191 (stating consumer expectation test can be used when "the incident causing injury is so bizarre or unusual that the jury would not need expert testimony to conclude that the product failed to meet the consumer's expectations."). The court initially adopted the modified consumer expectation test in Potter. The court in Izarelli clarified that the purpose of the modified consumer expectation test is to "essentially provide the jury with information that a fully informed consumer would know before deciding whether to purchase the product." Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 209. The modified consumer expectations test requires the plaintiff to offer into evidence, the product's risks and its utility so that the jury can determine whether a "reasonable consumer would consider the product design unreasonably dangerous." Id. at 190 (quoting Potter, 241 Conn. at 221). Some of the factors a plaintiff may utilize to meet her burden include: (1) the usefulness of the product, (2) the likelihood and severity of the danger posed by the design, (3) the feasibility of an alternative design, (4) the financial cost of an improved design, and (5) the feasibility of the increased price upon the consumer. Id. at 221 n.15; see also Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 (listing factors that a jury "may consider" but noting plaintiffs are "not limited to" those listed). While a plaintiff may offer evidence of a reasonable alternative design, there is no requirement that a plaintiff must do so to meet its burden of proof as a matter of law. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 ("The availability of a feasible alternative design is a factor that the plaintiff may, rather than must, prove in order to establish that a product's risks outweigh its utility."). Theoretically, and as illustrated in the table saw example above, the modified consumer expectation test protects plaintiffs by permitting more claims to be heard by the jury. Nevertheless, by making the modified consumer expectation test the primary test, plaintiffs are now required to expend significant sums to ensure the factors listed in Potter's proposed jury charge are addressed and persuasively presented. Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 n.15. While not legally required to produce evidence of each factor, leaving factors unaddressed is dicey, as juries may not be persuaded in the absence of proof on all factors mentioned in the judge's charge, including a reasonable alternative design. But, although more difficult to prove, the modified consumer test remains true to the public policy of strict product liability. The jury's focus remains on the product itself and its dangerous propensities. Section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts discusses the product liability claims. Under Section 2(b) a product is defectively designed when: "The foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design . . . and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe." (Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec. 2(b)). The court addressed the adoption of this test 19 years ago in Potter. There, the court considered a draft version of section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which is identical to that found in the published version of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Compare Potter, 241 Conn. at 216 (quoting draft of Section 2(b)) with Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec. 2(b)). The court rejected the test in section 2(b) stating, "the feasible alternative design requirement imposes an undue burden on plaintiffs that might preclude otherwise valid claims from jury consideration." Potter, 241 Conn. at 217. After the court's decision in Potter, the drafters of section 2(b) in the Restatement (Third) of Torts added sections 3 and 4 to state that a reasonable alternative design need not be proved in res ipsa- type cases or when the manufacturer violates the law. See Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec. 3 cmt. b.1.; id. cmt. a. (noting that section 3 applies to design defects that are "identical to that which would ordinarily be caused by a manufacturing defect.") However, Section 2(b) remains unchanged. The test proposed in section 2(b) requires the court to sever design defect claims from its strict product liability roots, cut ties with the public policy supporting its holding in Potter, and rebalance protection of the innocent consumer with the financial interests of manufacturers. Section 2(b) adopts principles of negligence for design defect claims. Comments to this section explain that the test "for products that are defectively designed or sold . . . achieve[s] the same general objectives as does liability predicated on negligence." Id. at cmt. a. In addition, there is the requirement that a plaintiff must prove a reasonable alternative design, and its effectiveness. Strict product liability for design defects serves to protect the consuming public in ways the negligence standard proposed in section 2(b) will not. Strict liability creates a strong incentive for manufacturers to adequately design, develop, and test the product before it enters the market. It sends the message to manufacturers that they should take care to allocate resources to develop safe designs and to discover defects. Strict liability provides that manufacturers who fail to perform these steps will face liability for their failures. This tells manufacturers, "if you want to earn a profit off your product marketed to the consuming public, then you will bear the responsibility of injuries caused." Rightly, it emphasizes the wellbeing of the consumer over the profit of the manufacturer. In contrast, the test in section 2(b) lowers the bar from strict liability to negligence. It focuses the jury's inquiry on the conduct of the manufacturer in designing the product. Incorporating elements of foreseeability will greatly increase the burden on plaintiffs. It is antithetical to the policy that those who "lack familiarity" should not "shoulder the burden of proving negligence." Potter, 241 Conn. at 209. Just as ordinary consumers lack familiarity in the manufacturing process of the products they buy, ordinary consumers also do not generally have insight into manufacturing design or development processes. The consumer is significantly disadvantaged. In addition to changing Connecticut's design defect law to a negligence standard, section 2(b) also mandates plaintiffs to prove a reasonable alternative design. While plaintiffs may offer evidence of reasonable alternative designs at trial, making proof of a reasonable alternative design a requirement will preclude plaintiffs from filing valid product liability claims where value cannot justify the expense of introducing such evidence at trial - - assuming plaintiffs can even muster the huge resources and army of experts necessary to prove a reasonable alternative design. In a time of out-of-control litigation costs that already bar many legitimate claims from seeing the light of a courtroom, legal tests which substantially increase these costs stand as a barrier to justice. Further, there is a real concern that manufacturers of products designed with no reasonable alternative will be immunized. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 219; see also Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (same). Let's use driverless cars as an example. Testing of these robot cars is occurring on public roads in many states across the country. Consider a scenario where a consumer is harmed because the driverless car causes a non-res ipsa type accident. Absent specific contrary legislation on driverless cars, under section 2(b), a plaintiff must submit evidence of a reasonable alternative design. Two ways come to mind: (1) obtain design information from a competitor that may make a safer driverless car, or (2) hire a team of experts to design, build, and present a working marketable prototype of a driverless car. As to the former, it is highly unlikely that a competing manufacturer will provide a plaintiff with its product design information voluntarily, and there are no discovery tools for which a plaintiff can obtain the information of a manufacturer's competitor. As to the latter, the cost in proving this reasonable alternative design will be an impossible task for almost every plaintiff. Because driverless car technology is still in its testing phase, there may not be a reasonable alternative design available, and therefore, a plaintiff's claim will be precluded at the outset. The modified consumer expectation test permits a plaintiff to rely on a reasonable alternative design, or utilize one or more of the several other factors listed in Potter to prove her case. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 n.15. Thus, a plaintiff can present the risks and utility of a driverless car that is prone to crashing in certain situations. The jury can assess either of these products through the lens of an ordinary consumer. The focus remains on the safety of the product and the protection of the consuming public. If the drafters of section 2(b) were truly concerned with "creating incentives for manufacturers to achieve optimal levels of safety in designing and marketing products," then strict liability for design defect claims would persist. Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec. 2(b) cmt. a. The modified consumer expectation test allows the jury to utilize "ordinary knowledge common to the community" to assess the product. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 190 ("Under the 'modified' consumer expectation test, the jury would weigh the product's risks and utility and then inquire in light of those factors, whether a 'reasonable consumer would consider the product design unreasonably dangerous.'") The judgment of the jury and what an ordinary consumer expects should not be supplanted for what a manufacturer failed to foresee. See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A cmt. i. "[P]ublic policy demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them." Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A, cmt. c. This has been the law in Connecticut for half a century. It is supported by sound public policy and should continue to persist for the benefit and safety of the consuming public. * France Introduces Class Action for Privacy-Related Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Delphine Charlot, Esq. -- delphine.charlot@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a few weeks ago, France passed the Digital Republic Act which significantly enhances French citizens' rights to privacy by offering new avenues to exercise rights and granting new powers to the French data protection authority. A recent amendment to the Data Protection Act, adopted November 18, 2016, goes a mile farther and introduces a new type of class action for privacy-related matters. Class actions were introduced into the French Consumer Code quite recently, in 2014. Although largely inspired by the U.S.-style class action, class actions in France have a slightly different scope: -- In contrast to the U.S., in France punitive damages are not allowed, and where compensation may be sought, it must correspond to actual damages or loss suffered. -- Only certain matters or industries fall within the scope of the Consumer Code provisions: unfair commercial practices and anti-competitive behavior by professionals in the context of the sale of goods or the provision of a service have been the trigger for class actions since 2014. The November 18 law extends class actions to privacy-related claims, and other matters such as discrimination, damage to the environment, and medical damages arising from treatments and products. -- Only specific, approved associations may bring a class action on behalf of consumers, who must give them a mandate to act in court. Consumers may give such mandates from the start of proceedings or may opt-in to proceedings at a later stage, within a time period established by the court. -- Representative associations may introduce class actions where (i) at least two consumers who are placed in a similar situation, (ii) suffer from a material loss, (iii) as a result of a breach of a legal or contractual obligation by a professional. Given the procedural restrictions described above, only seven class actions have been introduced in France to date. However, the significant extension in scope under the new law may modify the state of play. For privacy-related class actions, (i) at least two individuals placed in a similar situation (ii) who suffer from a damage caused by a breach of the French Data Protection Act, (iii) may bring an action before a civil or administrative court, (iv) against a data controller or a data processor, (v) through an approved consumer association, a declared privacy rights association, or an official employee union, (vi) in order to seek an injunction to stop the infringement. Note that, unlike other types of French class actions, individuals may not obtain monetary compensation for damage caused. It can be expected that the new regime will increase litigation on privacy-related grounds. However, consumer associations have started to litigate in the field of privacy without a class-action mandate. In March 2014, French leading consumer association Que Choisir brought internet giants Twitter, Facebook and Google to court, arguing that modifications of the companies' respective terms and conditions constituted unfair commercial practices. Associations such as Que Choisir may now directly rely on the French Data Protection Act, thus bringing privacy into the spotlight. The timing of the new French regime is no mere coincidence. It anticipates the application of the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") on May 25, 2018. The GDPR expressly sets forth a right for individuals to mandate not-for-profit bodies, organizations or associations, whose statutory objective is data protection in the public interest, to lodge a complaint, exercise the right to an effective judicial remedy, and/or obtain compensation for damages. The new French regime also resembles German provisions that went into force on February 24, 2016. It is clear, more than ever, that companies should take privacy seriously and get ready for the GDPR by its May 25, 2018 deadline. While class actions for privacy infringements may not result in awards for financial damage in France, they raise other substantial risks for companies, including reputational harm and litigation expense. ********* 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 * * *