/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170331.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 31, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 65 Headlines A&P PARKING: Faces "Camara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wyche" Suit ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schafer" Suit Claims ALLIED NEVADA: Shareholder Class Action Litigation Amended ASAP COURIER: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wage ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Bids for Judgment in "Spiegel" Denied ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Court Partially OK's Class Action Notice AT&T SERVICES: Gorss Motels Files Suit Over "Unsolicited" Faxes BIOAMBER INC: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set BRITISH COLUMBIA: Used Public Funds for Political Ads, Suit Says BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits "Hussey" Plaintiff's Next Move BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Six Suits Over Sale to Broadcom CALIFORNIA: Judge May Toss Portions of Inmates' Phone Class Suit CANADIAN FUNDING: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Ruling in CGC Suit CASCADE BANCORP: Faces "Crosse" Shareholder Class Suit in Oregon CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Suit by Sternheim Family CCO HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement CCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Sciabacucchi" Suit Remains Pending CHAPS INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Hart" Suit over Internet Service CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Scholl" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend RICO Suits in Pa. and Ohio CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Dismisses Claims in Noteholders Suit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Oklahoma CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit Alleging Wells Caused Earthquakes Ongoing CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Various Suits over Royalty Claims Underway CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suits Alleging Rigging of Bids Still Pending CIOX HEALTH: Sued Over Overpriced Electronic Medical Record Fees CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Sobel" Suit Says COOPER COMPANIES: Contact Lens Consumers Suits Still in Discovery CVS PHARMACY: Calif. Judge Won't Certify 11 State Classes CWI INC: Faces "Leclaire" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA DAVID BOULEY LLC: "Ahmed" Alleges FLSA Violation in N.Y. DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Brower Piven Disclose Class Action Filing DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Refuses to Certify Mortgage Class Action DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Class Action in Illinois DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Bremer Appeals "Wright" Suit Ruling to 11th Cir. GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Lambert" Suit over Skin Gel Label GEO GROUP: Appeals Class Cert. Decision in "Menocal" Suit GERON CORP: Awaits Preliminary Approval of $6.25MM Settlement GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Disburses Real Property Taxes Under Protest HARBOR FREIGHT: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Sale Prices HERITAGE OAKS: Defends "Garfield" Suit Over Merger with Pacific HOMELAND SECURITY: Asylum-Seekers' Claims Stay in Federal Court HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in "Reniger" Suit Has Final OK INSYS THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set IVEST 360: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations JACKSON HEWITT: Court Trims Claims in "Mardis" Suit JBS S.A.: Faces "LeonForte" Suit over Tainted-Meat Scandal JELD-WEN HOLDING: Settlement Funds Already Credited to Claimants LA CIMA RESTAURANTS: "Poole" Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage LAFAYETTE STREET: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law LEIDOS: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Funds' Fraud Suit LLR INC: Faces "Goodwin" Suit over Defective Leggings LOUISIANA: Sued Over Tangipahoa Parish I-12 Flooding MACHINE ZONE: 4th Circuit Affirms GoW Class Action Dismissal MDL 2243: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Suits over Fosamax Fractures MEDTRONIC PLC: Awaits Minn. Court Decision in "Merenstein" Suit MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe Suit Remains Pending MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Matters Underway in Sprint Fidelis Suit MEDTRONIC PLC: Remaining INFUSE-Linked Claims to Be Tried in 2017 MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit by St. Paul Teachers' Fund Remains Pending MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 11,300 of Pelvic Mesh Litigation Claims METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Class Suit Challenges American Axle Deal MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Xbox Case in June MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Grills Lawyers on Rule 23 Issue MICROSOFT CORP: Win 10 Update Destroyed Hard Drive, Suit Claims MINI MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Smith" Suit Claims MEDITERRANEAN KITCHENS: "Trujillo" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Law MINOR LEAGUE: Judge Recertifies Collective & Class Action NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Rienzo" Stock Suit Over 2016, 2017 IPO NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Okays $208MM GIA Class Action Settlement NATIONAL DEBT: Faces "Clayton" TCPA Suit in Cal. NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: American Trucking Appeals Order to 2nd Cir. ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: "Coleman" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA OPHTHOTECH CORP: "Wasson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: S.D.N.Y. Tosses Amended "Vaccaro" Complaint OSF HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Appointment of Interim Class Counsel PEOPLES TRUST: Court Allows Appeal from Class Certification Order PFIZER INC: United Food Fund, Others Appeal Ruling to 4th Circuit PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Law QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Anonymous Plaintiff Lacks Standing REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Underway in Calif. REVLON INC: Second Consolidated Amended Class Complaint Filed RICHARD CATENA: Faces Class Action Over Fake Warranties SAKS FIFTH: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Payton" Suit Claims SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Hansen" Suit Over Washing Machines SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "West" Class Suit v. Unit Underway in Oklahoma SANOFI: 1,019 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31 SANOFI: 791 Taxotere(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31 SANOFI: Faces 2 Suits in New Jersey Alleging RICO Act Violations SANOFI: Faces Claims and Suit in France Over Use of Depakine(R) SANOFI: Faces Two Antitrust Class Action Suits in Massachusetts SANOFI: Settles Menactra(R) Antitrust Class Suit for $61.5 Mil. SANOFI: Says NY Shareholder Securities Class Action Now Over SANOFI: CVR Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. Now Over SANTA ROSA, CA: Faces "Aboudara" Suit Over FLSA Violation SHENZEN SUNSHINE: Faces Class Suit over Defective Hobby Drones SHILOH INDUSTRIES: New York Judge Dismisss Shareholders' Suit SPARK ENERGY: April 17 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in "Melville" SPARK ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Veilleux" Suit Underway SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Securities Class Suit in N.D. Indiana Pending TAILORED BRANDS: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in "Makhlouf" TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Order on Doshi & Garbowski Merging TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Wu" Suit TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Class Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Bid to Stay Jackie888 Class Suit TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Spurlock" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit over "Winter Warmup" Promo Dropped UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "McElrath" Suit Stayed Pending SCOTUS Appeal UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Court Dismisses Ex-Rowers' Class Action VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part WALTER INVESTMENT: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WELLS FINANCIAL: Class Suit Challenges $40MM Citizens Deal WP& S CONTRACTORS: Tessie, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA XPO LOGISTICS: "Quinlan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages YAHOO INC: UFCW Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit * Arkansas House Approves Bill to Curb Class Actions * Justice Murphy Applauds Australia's Current Class Action Regime * Judge Says No Americanisation of Australian Class Action System * Neil Gorsuch Says He's Not Biased Against Class Actions * Perpetual Sr. Lawyer Balks at "Excessive" Class Action Fees Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Warehouse Owner Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Moore" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Court Narrows Inmate's Pro Se Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Not Proper Venue for Suits vs. Law Firms ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Babbidge Library ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cottage Undergoes Asbestos and Mold Inspection ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Test Conducted at Former Days Inn Hotel ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Auto Parts Building Treated for Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medicare Liens Slow Asbestos Settlement Process ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos 'Double-Dipping' Reform Bill Nixed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah AG Sues 4 Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanly Conroy Renews $100,000 Pledge for ADAO ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure A Major Issue in Puerto Rico ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains Major Health Hazard for Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cranbury School Seek State Reimbursement ASBESTOS UPDATE: TLR Releases Paper on Texas Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Containing Dust Forces Closure of Lab ********* A&P PARKING: Faces "Camara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Mory Camara, on behalf of himself, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&P Parking Corp. and Muhammad Arif and Pirzada Uddin, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02187 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standardas Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a parking attendant. Defendant is a corporation that operated several parking garages in the City of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 679-5000 Fax: (212) 679-5005 ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wyche" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Christopher Wyche filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion & order and judgment, both dated March 10, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Wyche v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-5955, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2017, the putative stockholder class action was filed on July 29, 2015, naming the Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The appellate case is captioned as Wyche v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-743, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Wyche, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com Defendant-Appellee Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., is represented by: Victor Genecin, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 872-9889 Facsimile: (212) 872-9815 E-mail: victor.genecin@squiresanders.com Defendant-Appellee Joseph A. Chlapaty is represented by: Robert A. Scher, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 338-3405 Facsimile: (212) 687-2329 E-mail: rscher@foley.com Defendant-Appellee Mark B. Sturgeon is represented by: Peter Joseph Pizzi, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP 1745 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 380-1043 E-mail: ppizzi@walsh.law ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schafer" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa J. Schafer, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Allied Interstate LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-00233 (W.D. Mich., March 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in attempting to collect a time barred debt without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued on the debt because of the age of the debt. The Defendants own and operate a collection agency in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701-5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - B. Thomas Golden (P70822) GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897-2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com ALLIED NEVADA: Shareholder Class Action Litigation Amended ---------------------------------------------------------- Morganti Legal, P.C., a cross border shareholder's rights law firm, on March 21, disclosed that the plaintiff for the putative class action on behalf of shareholders of "Allied Nevada Gold Corp.", TSX: "ANV" (now known as Hycroft Mining Corporation) has obtained leave from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to abandon the claims of those shareholders who purchased securities of ANV on the secondary market from January 18, 2013 to and including August 5, 2013 (the "putative class period"). A copy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Order is available at https://is.gd/V40ZiA If you purchased securities of ANV on the Toronto Stock Exchange or on any other exchange during the putative class period, other than on an exchange located in the United States, there is no putative class proceeding protecting your rights. Any applicable unexpired limitation periods will now resume and accordingly if you are considering asserting any such claims you should immediately seek legal advice. Investors who purchased securities of ANV pursuant to Allied Nevada Gold Corp.'s May 17, 2013 secondary public offering continue to have their rights protected under this putative class action. About Morganti Legal For further information: If you wish to obtain additional information about the shareholder litigation against Hycroft Mining Corporation, please contact Matthew Stroh at (647) 344-1900 or mstroh@morgantilegal.com. ASAP COURIER: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wage ----------------------------------------------------------- Lucas Cook, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asap Courier & Logistics, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a Need it Now Courier, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-60605-BB (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2017) seeks payment of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a van driver. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendant failed to pay him any overtime wages, say the complaint. Asap Courier & Logistics, LLC is a courier service company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eddy O. Marban, Esq. The Law Offices of Eddy O. Marban 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 448-9292 Fax: (305) 448-9477 Email: marbanlaw@gmail.com ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Bids for Judgment in "Spiegel" Denied -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Larry J. McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied the parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings in the case styled MIKE SPIEGEL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01998-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind.). Mike Spiegel filed a complaint on July 26, 2016, alleging that the letter he received from Ashwood Financial, Inc., last March, 16, 2016, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g(a)(4) & (5), by failing to state that any dispute of the debt or any request for the name and address of the original creditor must be made in writing for a debtor to obtain a verification of the debt or the name and address of the original creditor, if different than the current creditor. Spiegel further argues that Ashwood's failure to notify debtors that such disputes or requests must be in writing constituted unfair and unconscionable collection actions in violation of the FDCPA because whether a dispute could be made orally or in writing could determine whether a consumer wishes to dispute the debt. Ashwood filed its answer to Spiegel's complaint on September 16, 2016, providing eight affirmative defenses in its answer. In its first affirmative defense Ashwood indicated that the letter did not violate the FDCPA but stated that any alleged violation of the FDCPA was purely technical, the result of bona fide error and not intentional, resulting in no actual damages, no lack of material information that would play a role in a consumer's decision as to whether to dispute a debt, notwithstanding Ashwood's maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error. On January 21, 2017, Ashwood filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the letter did not violate the FDCPA because 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) does not require consumer disputes to be in writing to be effective. Spiegel submitted his response in opposition to the Ashwood motion on February 14, 2017 and additionally Spiegel concurrently filed his cross motion for judgment on the pleadings. Spiegel argues that he is entitled to judgment because the letter fails to state that a debtor's dispute must be in writing in order to protect the debtor's right to verification of the debt and to the name and address of the original creditor, as required by the plain language of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(4) & (5). Moreover, Spiegel contends that Ashwood's first affirmative defense does not prevent the court from granting the Spiegel cross motion because the first affirmative defense was not plead with sufficient factual support under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Judge McKinney held that Ashwood's argument regarding the effectiveness of oral disputes does not address Spiegel's allegations and Ashwood improperly introduced its bona fide error defense in its reply in support. Ashwood fails to provide any factual context as to what errors existed in the letter and to address how such errors meet the definition of a bona fide error. The court sua sponte strikes Ashwood's first affirmative defense. Judge McKinney denied Ashwood's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Spiegel's cross motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court also strikes Ashwood's first affirmative defense without prejudice and grants Ashwood seven days from the date of the order to amend its answer. A copy of Judge McKinney's order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ALCaF7 from Leagle.com. MIKE SPIEGEL, Plaintiff, represented by: Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Steven James Halbert, Esq. David J. Philipps, Esq.P PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Ed. Suite 1 Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: 708-974-2900 Fax: 708-974-2907 ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, represented by: Karen B. Neiswinger, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 5335 N Tacoma Ave #12 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Tel: 317-251-2250 ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Court Partially OK's Class Action Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Larry J. McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to approve and denied defendant's motion to stay the case styled MIKE SPIEGEL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC. an Indiana corporation, Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01998-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind.). Mike Spiegel filed a complaint on July 26, 2016, alleging that the letter he received from Ashwood Financial, Inc., last March, 16, 2016, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g(a)(4) & (5), by failing to state that any dispute of the debt or any request for the name and address of the original creditor must be made in writing for a debtor to obtain a verification of the debt or the name and address of the original creditor, if different than the current creditor. Spiegel further argues that Ashwood's failure to notify debtors that such disputes or requests must be in writing constituted unfair and unconscionable collection actions in violation of the FDCPA because whether a dispute could be made orally or in writing could determine whether a consumer wishes to dispute the debt. On February 2, 2017, the court certified Spiegel's proposed class, which was defined as: "All persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana from whom Ashwood attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, via the same form collection letter that Ashwood sent to Spiegel from one year before the date of the complaint to the present." Spiegel filed a motion to approve on February 22, 2017, requesting that the court approve his proposed notice of class action and order Ashwood to provide the names and addresses of all of the class members so that Spiegel could notify the class members about this action. Spiegel's proposed notice of class action stated that the letter allegedly failed to advise consumers that disputes and requests for the name of the original creditor had to be in writing for them to be effective, in violation of Section 1692g and of the FDCPA. Ashwood objects and argue that the description of the letter constitutes an incorrect statement of the law set forth in Spiegel's complaint" because disputes are not required to be in writing to be effective under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g. Ashwood filed a motion to stay, claiming that it should not be required to provide the names and addresses of the class members to Spiegel until the court rules upon the parties' pending cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, to protect the interest of judicial economy and to prevent possible violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Judge McKinney held that the court cannot approve Spiegel's proposed notice of class action as it is currently written. The proposed notice of class action indicates that Ashwood allegedly failed to advise consumers that disputes and requests for the name of the original creditor had to be in writing for them to be effective, in violation of Section 1692g and of the FDCPA. However, the statement does not clearly communicate the class's claim that Ashwood specifically violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(4) & (5) because the letter did not notify debtors that a dispute of a debt must be in writing if the debtor wishes to obtain a verification of the debt or the name and address of the original creditor. Spiegel must revise the notice of class action to more clearly state the specific claims set forth by the class and the issues involved. Even though the court cannot approve the proposed notice of class action at this time, there is no need for Ashwood to delay in providing the names and address of the class members to Spiegel. Judge McKinney granted in part and denied in part Spiegel's motion to approve, and denied Ashwood's motion to stay. The parties shall confer regarding a proposed amended notice of class action, which shall provide greater specificity as to the subsections serving as the basis for the class's claims. After the parties have conferred about the amended notice of class action, Spiegel shall either submit a notice of an agreed amended notice of class action or a notice of continued dispute within fourteen days from the date of the order. If the filing is only a notice of continued dispute, Spiegel shall file his motion to approve class notice within fourteen days thereafter. Ashwood must also provide Spiegel with the names and addresses of all class members with fourteen days from the date of the order. A copy of Judge McKinney's order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/IUVa6b from Leagle.com. MIKE SPIEGEL, Plaintiff, represented by: Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Steven James Halbert, Esq. David J. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Ed. Suite 1 Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: 708-974-2900 Fax: 708-974-2907 ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, represented by: Karen B. Neiswinger, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 5335 N Tacoma Ave #12 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Tel: 317-251-2250 AT&T SERVICES: Gorss Motels Files Suit Over "Unsolicited" Faxes --------------------------------------------------------------- GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T INC., Delaware corporations, AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, AT&T CORP., a New York corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00403 (D. Conn., March 9, 2017), challenges Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles under the Junk Fax Prevention Act. AT&T Services, Inc. tests, commercializes, and markets Internet services to residential and commercial customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: 914-358-5345 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: 847-368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com BIOAMBER INC: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on March 20 issued the following statement: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of BioAmber Inc. ("BioAmber") (NYSE:BIOA) (1) pursuant and/or traceable to BioAmber's secondary public offering on or about January 23, 2017; and/or (2) on the open market from January 23, 2017 through March 16, 2017. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra/bioamber-inc or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll- free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period BioAmber made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a large customer of BioAmber that was expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016 experienced a technical problem in its manufacturing facility and postponed the order to 2017; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about BioAmber's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in BioAmber you have until May 17, 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. Levi & Korsinsky -- http:www.zlk.com -- is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Used Public Funds for Political Ads, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Greer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Canadian voters filed a class action in Vancouver, British Columbia and its ruling party, claiming they are using public money to pay for partisan ads to buff the B.C. Liberal Party's image. Voters will go to the polls May 9 in the province The New York Times has dubbed the Wild West of political fund raising. Lead plaintiff David Trapp filed a notice of civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court against Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, and the right-wing B.C. Liberal party -- not to be confused with the federal Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau. Trapp claims the B.C. Liberal Party has spent millions of dollars on "taxpayer-funded partisan and non-essential advertising," to promote the party's agenda on job creation and natural gas resource development. "The purpose of the above-noted advertising is to enhance the image and reputation of the elected defendants' political party and to improve their likelihood of success in the provincial election," the complaint states. Trapp says the governing party has wrongfully deleted public records, and that under former Premier Gordon Campbell, it suspended non-essential advertising before the 2009 election. Advertising then was limited to benign topics such as foster parent recruitment, service changes, public meetings, and traffic pattern changes, according to the complaint. Trapp seeks class certification and wants the party ordered to repay the public treasury for the partisan and non-essential ads it bought. The B.C. Liberal Party did not respond to a request for comment. Trapp's attorney Paul Doroshenko said in a phone interview that the lawsuit was spurred by public anger over the government ads, which have been running concurrently with ads for the B.C. Liberal Party, produced by the same advertising firm. While there are no precedents to cite in the case, Doroshenko said, the B.C. government breached its fiduciary duty to taxpayers by spending public money on the ads. "My concern is that they've taken what appears $15 million of our taxpayer money and they're running ads in the hopes of getting reelected," he said. "The [B.C.] Liberal Party is converting taxpayer money to their own [uses] and reaping the benefit and distorting the electoral process in the process. . . . The number one rule of a fiduciary [is], 'Don't take it for your own good.'" In a Jan. 13 article under the headline: "British Columbia: The 'Wild West' of Canadian Political Cash," The New York Times reported, among other things, that in addition to her annual salary of 195,000 Canadian tax dollars, B.C. Premier Christy Clark gets another 50,000 Canadian dollars from her party's coffers. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits "Hussey" Plaintiff's Next Move ------------------------------------------------------------- Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., awaits the Plaintiff's next move in the lawsuit titled Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al., according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 28, 2017. On May 27, 2016 ("Acquisition Date"), the Company completed its acquisition of Ruckus Wireless, Inc., a public company incorporated in the state of Delaware, to strengthen its Internet Protocol ("IP") Networking product portfolio by adding Ruckus' wireless products and services to the Company's networking solutions. A putative class action captioned Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et al. is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (referred to as the "Hussey action"). The original complaint in the Hussey action filed on June 3, 2016, alleged that Ruckus, members of the Ruckus board of directors, Ruckus' chief financial officer, Brocade, and a Brocade subsidiary violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or alleged omissions in the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed by Ruckus with the SEC on April 29, 2016, and violated Section 14(d)(7) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder based on the allegedly differential consideration received by members of the Ruckus board of directors and Ruckus' chief financial officer in connection with the acquisition. An amended complaint filed on October 24, 2016, named the same defendants as the original complaint and alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(7), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder, that the members of the Ruckus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Ruckus stockholders, and that Ruckus' chief financial officer, Brocade and the Brocade subsidiary aided and abetted the members of the Ruckus board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to Ruckus stockholders by purportedly doing one or more of the following: agreeing to terms preferential to the defendants and other Ruckus insiders; accepting overly restrictive deal protection measures in the merger agreement; failing to negotiate for a collar on Brocade's stock price; engaging a financial advisor with conflicts of interest; providing allegedly false, misleading, and/or incomplete disclosures regarding conflicts of interest and the opinion of Ruckus's financial advisors; and ultimately agreeing to unfair transaction consideration for the Ruckus shares. The amended complaint sought an award of damages in an unspecified amount. On December 8, 2016, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 21, 2017, the court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend as to all claims except the claim for violations of Section 14(d)(7) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder, which claim was dismissed without leave to amend. The plaintiff is required to file any further amended complaint regarding its remaining claims on or before March 20, 2017. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., is a supplier of networking hardware, software, and services for businesses and organizations of various types and sizes. The Company's end customers include global enterprises and other organizations that use its products and services as part of their communications infrastructure. In addition, service providers, such as telecommunication firms, cable operators, and mobile carriers, use the Company's products and services as part of their commercial operations. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Six Suits Over Sale to Broadcom --------------------------------------------------------------- Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., is defending six purported class action lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by Broadcom Limited, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the quarter period ended January 28, 2017. On November 2, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Broadcom Limited, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, Broadcom Corporation, a California corporation and an indirect subsidiary of Broadcom ("Parent"), and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. On December 19, 2016, Parent assigned all of its rights under the Merger Agreement to LSI Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an indirect subsidiary of Broadcom. Subsequent to the announcement that Brocade had agreed to be acquired by Broadcom, six purported class action complaints have been filed on behalf of Brocade's stockholders against Brocade and members of its board of directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Three of the six complaints also name Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and/or Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc. as defendants. The six complaints are captioned as follows: Steinberg v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 12, 2016) (the "Steinberg action"); Gross v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 15, 2016); Bragan v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2016); Jha v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2016) (the "Jha action"); Chuakay v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed January 5, 2017) (the "Chuakay action"); and Matthew v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed January 18, 2017) (collectively, the "Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation"). The complaints each allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 arising out of the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on December 6, 2016 (the "preliminary proxy statement") and/or the Company's definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 (the "definitive proxy statement") relating to Broadcom's proposed acquisition of Brocade. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement and/or the definitive proxy statement omits material information regarding the background of the transaction, the Company's financial projections, the Company's intrinsic value and prospects, the valuation analyses performed by Evercore Group L.L.C. ("Evercore"), the Company's financial advisor in connection with the transaction, and alleged conflicts of interest faced by Evercore. The plaintiffs in each action seek to enjoin the defendants from consummating the transaction, or, if the transaction is consummated, the plaintiffs alternatively seek rescission and/or damages. The plaintiffs also seek costs and fees. On January 11, 2017, the plaintiff in the Jha action filed a motion (the "Injunction Motion") seeking to preliminarily enjoin the special meeting of Brocade stockholders scheduled for January 26, 2017, at which time Brocade stockholders were to vote on the transaction. The plaintiffs in the Steinberg action and the Chuakay action subsequently joined the Injunction Motion. To mitigate the risk of the Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the transaction, and to minimize the expense of defending the Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, on January 18, 2017, the Company made certain disclosures that supplemented and revised those contained in the definitive proxy statement. The plaintiffs in the Jha action, the Steinberg action, and the Chuakay action subsequently withdrew the Injunction Motion. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., is a supplier of networking hardware, software, and services for businesses and organizations of various types and sizes. The Company's end customers include global enterprises and other organizations that use its products and services as part of their communications infrastructure. In addition, service providers, such as telecommunication firms, cable operators, and mobile carriers, use the Company's products and services as part of their commercial operations. CALIFORNIA: Judge May Toss Portions of Inmates' Phone Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland Calif. indicated on March 21, she would toss at least some claims in four related class actions accusing Bay Area jails of allowing telecoms to overcharge inmates and their families for phone calls in exchange for a slice of the profits. Inmates filed virtually identical class actions accusing Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties of forcing them to pay excessive fees to make and receive phone calls, in violation of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's unlawful takings provision, the Equal Protection Clause and Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. All four class actions were filed in August 2016 and amended in December. Similar lawsuits have been filed against Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. The inmates say the four Bay Area counties struck deals with Global Tel Link Corp. and Securus Technologies, granting them exclusive rights to run phone systems in their jails. Inmates or their families must set up prepaid accounts with the telecoms, are charged "unreasonable, unjust and exorbitant rates," and most of the money goes to the counties as "commissions," according to the four virtually identical complaints. The counties and their jails get $1.5 million annually or nearly 71 percent of the commissions, whichever is higher, and a yearly $150,000 technology grant, according to the complaints. At oral argument on March 21, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ripped apart most of the plaintiffs' arguments, and turned her most scathing critique upon their constitutional claims. The lawsuits claim that the phone rates "essentially extort() monies from mostly poor and minority families trying to get by and stay in contact with loved ones," in violation of the First Amendment. They also claim that the fees and the "extortionate and outrageous 'commissions'" disproportionately charge poor people and people of color for county services whose costs should be borne by all taxpayers, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's takings provision. "What concerns me in this case is the needle the plaintiffs are trying to thread," Gonzalez Rogers said. "'No, judge, we're just talking about, you issue an order setting aside all future contracts, but we are really not trying to invalidate the contracts in front of you.' It seems to me that if I find that these contracts are unconstitutional as a matter of law, how can I sit here and allow them [the contracts] to proceed until the expiration of their terms?" Plaintiffs' attorney Barrett Litt told Gonzalez Rogers they are challenging the constitutionality of the commissions, not the constitutionality of the contracts themselves. He said the court could segregate the commissions and put them into an inmate welfare fund for education and other inmate services. Gonzalez Rogers seemed dissatisfied with that argument, saying that by challenging the commissions, the plaintiffs are also challenging the terms of the contracts. The parties then turned to joinder. In a consolidated motion to dismiss, filed in January, the counties say the claims should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to join Global Tel Link and Securus, which charge and collect the phone rates and fees, with the counties as defendants. Litt countered on March 21, that the suits are focused on the government, not the telecoms, and that adding the telecoms "would unnecessarily complicate what we have tried to make a very clear focus of this litigation." "There are lots of cases challenging on a nationwide basis whether or not these phone companies can engage," he said. "This is not what this case is about. This case is about the role of government entities and whether it's permissible role for them to play." Gonzalez Rogers seemed equally skeptical of the plaintiffs' joinder argument, essentially telling Litt that his clients would lose on the issue. "I think both sides concede that joinder is feasible, correct?" she asked of Litt. Gonzalez Rogers largely refrained from offering her opinion on the Sherman Act arguments. The plaintiffs claim that instead of keeping prices low by putting phone services out for bid, or allowing multiple companies to provide service, the counties sign exclusive agreements with the company "willing to pay the highest kickback." The counties say the Sherman Act claims are barred because counties collect the commissions pursuant to state law. They deny that exclusive contracting and collecting commissions violate antitrust laws. "The county's decision to have one phone provider, that's what makes it anticompetitive. The size of the commissions has nothing to do with being competitive or anticompetitive," said San Mateo County attorney Michael von Loewenfeldt. "The question is: Did the Legislature understand it was going to be anticompetitive activity? Yes. Did the Legislature also foresee that anticompetitive activity included charging commissions? Yes, because they told us what to do with the money." Von Loewenfeldt is with Kerr & Wagstaffe in San Francisco; Litt with Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt in Pasadena. CANADIAN FUNDING: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Ruling in CGC Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Sandy Hutchens, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled CGC Holding Co., et al. v. Hutchens, et al., Case No. 1:11-CV-01012-RBJ-KLM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The appellate case is captioned as CGC Holding Co., et al. v. Hutchens, et al., Case No. 17-1091, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CGC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; CRESCENT SOUND YACHT CLUB, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HARLEM ALGONQUIN LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; and JAMES T. MEDICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 P. Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 Facsimile: (732) 726-4735 E-mail: mmcguckin@wilentz.com - and - Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com Defendants-Appellants SANDY HUTCHENS, AKA Fred Hayes, AKA Moishe Alexander, AKA Moshe Ben Avraham; TANYA HUTCHENS; JENNIFER HUTCHENS, AKA Jennifer Araujo; 1681071 ONTARIO INC., an Ontario corporation which has changed its name to Canadian Funding Limited; NORTHERN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD, an Ontario corporation; 2800 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE UNITS 106-107 LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ESTATE OF JUDITH HUTCHENS; 129 LAREN STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2141250 Ontario Inc.; 3415 ERRINGTON AVENUE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2129974 Ontario Inc.; 367-369 HOWEY DRIVE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 1714530 Ontario Inc.; 3419 ERRINGTON AVENUE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2129982 Ontario Inc.; 17 SERPENTINE STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 1714529 Ontario Inc.; 720 CAMBRIAN HEIGHTS INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2154461 Ontario Inc.; 331 REGENT STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2126929 Ontario Inc.; 789 LAWSON STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2128417 Ontario Inc.; 110-114 PINE STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2173061 Ontario Inc.; 15-16 KEZIAH COURT INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2128412 Ontario Inc.; 193 MOUNTAIN STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2141249 Ontario Inc.; 625 ASH STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2128413 Ontario Inc.; 364 MORRIS STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2119821 Ontario Inc.; SANTAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.; 101 SERVICES ROAD INC.; 146 WHITAKER STREET INC., an Ontario corporation; 1697030 ONTARIO INC.; JBD HUTCHENS FAMILY HOLDINGS INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2129981 Ontario Inc.; JBD HOLDINGS; 1539006 ONTARIO INC.; 308 ELGIN STREET INC.; CANADIAN FUNDING CORPORATION; FIRST CENTRAL HOLDINGS INC.; and FIRST CENTRAL MORTGAGE FUNDING INC. are represented by: Scott Eric Gessler, Esq. HALE WESTFALL LLP 1600 Stout Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 904-6010 - and - Steven A. Klenda, Esq. ADROIT ADVOCATES 1624 Market Street, Suite 202 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 432-5705 E-mail: sklenda@adroitadvocates.com CASCADE BANCORP: Faces "Crosse" Shareholder Class Suit in Oregon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cascade Bancorp is facing a purported shareholder lawsuit styled Crosse v. Cascade Bancorp, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On November 17, 2016, First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. ("First Interstate") and Cascade announced a definitive agreement (the "First Interstate merger agreement") under which First Interstate, parent company of First Interstate Bank, will acquire Cascade in a cash and stock transaction for total consideration valued at approximately $590.5 million in aggregate, or $7.62 per share based on the First Interstate closing price of $38.40 per share on November 17, 2016 (the "First Interstate merger"). On February 24, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon styled Crosse v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 17CV08305. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by filing with the SEC a Registration Statement that fails to disclose all material information about the First Interstate merger. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company and First Interstate aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the First Interstate merger from going forward, as well as attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the allegations of the Complaint are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Complaint. Cascade Bancorp is an Oregon corporation and registered bank holding company that was formed in 1990 and is headquartered in Bend, Oregon. Bancorp and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bank of the Cascades, operate in Central, Southern, Coastal and Northwest Oregon, as well as in the greater Boise/Treasury Valley, Idaho and Seattle Metro areas. CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Suit by Sternheim Family ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cascade Bancorp is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by shareholder Sternheim Family Trust, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On November 17, 2016, First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. ("First Interstate") and Cascade announced a definitive agreement (the "First Interstate merger agreement") under which First Interstate, parent company of First Interstate Bank, will acquire Cascade in a cash and stock transaction for total consideration valued at approximately $590.5 million in aggregate, or $7.62 per share based on the First Interstate closing price of $38.40 per share on November 17, 2016 (the "First Interstate merger"). On February 16, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the Circuit Court for Deschutes County, Oregon styled Sternheim Family Trust v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 17CV06744. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and agreeing to the First Interstate merger. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the directors failed to obtain the highest possible value for the Company, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions in the merger agreement, and failed to disclose all material information in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company and First Interstate aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the First Interstate merger from going forward, damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the allegations of the Complaint are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Complaint. Cascade Bancorp is an Oregon corporation and registered bank holding company that was formed in 1990 and is headquartered in Bend, Oregon. Bancorp and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bank of the Cascades, operate in Central, Southern, Coastal and Northwest Oregon, as well as in the greater Boise/Treasury Valley, Idaho and Seattle Metro areas. CCO HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- CCO Holdings, LLC, awaits final approval of a settlement resolving a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as CCH I, LLC, or "Charter," an indirect parent company of CCO Holdings, LLC "CCO Holdings") completed its previously reported merger transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction"). In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast Corporation and Legacy TWC of their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and directors. Later five similar class actions were consolidated with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The NY Actions were settled in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015. In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge. Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys' fees. In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval to the settlement in October 2016. A hearing to consider final approval of this settlement has been set for March 2017. In the event that the New York Supreme Court does not approve the settlement, Charter intends to vigorously defend this case. CCO Holdings, LLC, is the second largest cable operator in the United States and a leading broadband communications services company providing video, Internet and voice services to approximately 26.2 million residential and business customers at December 31, 2016. In addition, the Company sells video and online advertising inventory to local, regional and national advertising customers and fiber-delivered communications and managed information technology ("IT") solutions to larger enterprise customers. The Company also owns and operates regional sports networks and local sports, news and lifestyle channels and sells security and home management services to the residential marketplace. CCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Sciabacucchi" Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the stockholder lawsuit initiated by Matthew Sciabacucchi remains pending in Delaware, CCO Holdings, LLC, said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as CCH I, LLC, or "Charter," an indirect parent company of CCO Holdings, LLC "CCO Holdings") completed its previously reported merger transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction"). In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N. On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on the Transactions. Charter has filed a motion to dismiss this litigation but the court has not yet ruled upon it. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit. CCO Holdings, LLC, is the second largest cable operator in the United States and a leading broadband communications services company providing video, Internet and voice services to approximately 26.2 million residential and business customers at December 31, 2016. In addition, the Company sells video and online advertising inventory to local, regional and national advertising customers and fiber-delivered communications and managed information technology ("IT") solutions to larger enterprise customers. The Company also owns and operates regional sports networks and local sports, news and lifestyle channels and sells security and home management services to the residential marketplace. CHAPS INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chaps, Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Shops, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01417 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay exempt-classified Store Managers' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chaps, Inc. operates more than 100 stores in New York using the "Rainbow Shops" brand. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Hart" Suit over Internet Service --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action in Santa Ana, Calif. claims that Charter Communications and Spectrum Management Holding Co., fka Time Warner Cable, promised internet service at speeds they knew they could not deliver. The case is captioned, ELIZABETH HART and LE'ROY ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY LLC, Defendants Case 8:17-cv-00556-DOC- RAO (C.D. Cal. March 28, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Jamin S. Soderstrom Esq. SODERSTROM LAW PC 3 Park Plaza, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 667-4700 Fax: (949) 424-8091 E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com - and - Douglas L. Mahaffey Esq. MAHAFFEY LAW GROUP 20162 SW Birch Street, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 833-1400 Fax: (949) 263-8736 E-mail: dougm@mahaffeylaw.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Scholl" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Scholl, Brian K. Glover, and Dennis W. Vaughn, on behalf of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation Savings and Incentive Stock Bonus Plan, themselves, and a class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, The Benefits Committee of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, The Investment Committee Of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Jay Hawkins, and John Does 1-20, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00279-R (W.D. Ok., March 14, 2017), arises from the failure of the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation Savings and Incentive Stock Bonus Plan, to protect the interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries in violation of the Defendants' legal obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the putative class members who are also Participants by, permitting the Plan to continue to offer Chesapeake Stock as an investment option to Participants even after they knew or should have known that: Chesapeake Stock was, for a substantial portion of the Class Period (between February 27, 2015, and September 28, 2016), artificially inflated; through their access to massive amounts of publicly-available information, Chesapeake was in extremely poor financial condition; and the Company faced equally poor long term prospects, making it an imprudent retirement investment for the Plan. Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emmanuel E. Edem, Esq. L. Mark Bonner, Esq. 127 N.W. 10th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 272-0200 Facsimile: (405) 272-1055 E-mail: lmb@nemw.com - and - Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend RICO Suits in Pa. and Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and for an unlawful market allocation agreement for mineral rights. One of the cases includes claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and violations of antitrust laws related to purported markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering sources. Oklahoma Suit Tossed The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in the 2016 Shareholder Litigation, Chesapeake Energy also disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On April 19, 2016, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and current and former directors and officers of the Company alleging, among other things, violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act related to actions allegedly taken by such persons since 2008. The lawsuit sought to assert derivative and direct claims, certification as a class action, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on August 30, 2016. Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately 22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to the Company's interest. The Company has a large and geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S. unconventional natural gas and liquids assets. The Company has leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Company also owns an oil and natural gas marketing business. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Dismisses Claims in Noteholders Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit brought on behalf of holders of Chesapeake Energy Corporation's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In April 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Company's December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company's private debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at the expense of class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the 2020 Notes and the 2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Second Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under the indentures for the 2020 Notes and the 2021 Notes. In June 2016, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and in October 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on February 8, 2017. Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately 22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to the Company's interest. The Company has a large and geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S. unconventional natural gas and liquids assets. The Company has leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Company also owns an oil and natural gas marketing business. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company received a Department of Justice subpoena and a voluntary document request from the SEC seeking information on the Company's accounting methodology for the acquisition and classification of oil and natural gas properties and related matters. Chesapeake has engaged in discussions with the DOJ and SEC about these matters. On October 4, 2016, a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain current directors and officers of the Company alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws for purported misstatements in the Company's SEC filings and other public disclosures regarding the Company's accounting for the acquisition and classification of oil and natural gas properties. The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately 22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to the Company's interest. The Company has a large and geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S. unconventional natural gas and liquids assets. The Company has leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Company also owns an oil and natural gas marketing business. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit Alleging Wells Caused Earthquakes Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending itself against a putative class action lawsuit alleging it operated wells in a manner that has caused earthquakes, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging that the Company and the other defendants have operated produced water disposal wells in a manner that has caused earthquakes. The proposed class would consist of property owners in a twenty-six county area of Oklahoma. The petition seeks, among other relief, reimbursement of insurance premiums and an award of damages for injury to real property. Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately 22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to the Company's interest. The Company has a large and geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S. unconventional natural gas and liquids assets. The Company has leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Company also owns an oil and natural gas marketing business. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Various Suits over Royalty Claims Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending itself against numerous lawsuits asserting royalty claims, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Regarding royalty claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment. The suits against the Company allege, among other things, that the Company used below-market prices, made improper deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL. Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective leases. Oil and gas law varies from state to state, and royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations. The Company has resolved a number of these claims through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has prevailed in various other lawsuits. The Company is currently defending lawsuits seeking damages with respect to royalty underpayment in various states, including, but not limited to, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and Arkansas. These lawsuits include cases filed by individual royalty owners and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a statewide class. The Company also has received DOJ, U.S. Postal Service and state subpoenas or information requests seeking information on the Company's royalty payment practices. Chesapeake is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual royalty owners alleging royalty underpayment with respect to properties in Texas. These lawsuits, organized for pre-trial proceedings with respect to the Barnett Shale and Eagle Ford Shale, respectively, generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making improper deductions, using incorrect production volumes and similar theories. Chesapeake expects that additional lawsuits will continue to be pursued and that new plaintiffs will file other lawsuits making similar allegations. On December 9, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Office of Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas related to royalty underpayment and lease acquisition and accounting practices with respect to properties in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit, which primarily relates to the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale, alleges that Chesapeake violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) by making improper deductions and entering into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties. The lawsuit includes other UTPCPL claims and antitrust claims, including that a joint exploration agreement to which Chesapeake is a party established unlawful market allocation for the acquisition of leases. The lawsuit seeks statutory restitution, civil penalties and costs, as well as temporary injunction from exploration and drilling activities in Pennsylvania until restitution, penalties and costs have been paid and a permanent injunction from further violations of the UTPCPL. Chesapeake has filed preliminary objections to the most recently amended complaint. Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately 22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to the Company's interest. The Company has a large and geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S. unconventional natural gas and liquids assets. The Company has leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Company also owns an oil and natural gas marketing business. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suits Alleging Rigging of Bids Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against antitrust lawsuits alleging it conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company is defending lawsuits alleging various violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust laws. In 2016, putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of Kansas, in each case against the Company and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits. Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately 22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to the Company's interest. The Company has a large and geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S. unconventional natural gas and liquids assets. The Company has leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Company also owns an oil and natural gas marketing business. CIOX HEALTH: Sued Over Overpriced Electronic Medical Record Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Roscoe, on behalf of all other similarly-situated class members v. CIOX Health, LLC f/k/a HealthPort Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2017CV287340 (Ga. Super. Ct., March 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation the Health Records Act, specifically by charging the Plaintiff a fee that was more than the reasonable costs to produce Electronic Medical Records/Electronic Health Records. CIOX Health, LLC is engaged in the business of the release, retrieval, and management of health information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jere L. Beasley, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" MILES III, Esq. Archie I. Grubb II, Esq. Andrew E. Brashier, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: iere.beaslev@beaslevallen.com dee.miles@beaslevallen.com - and - Matt Harman, Esq. Eric Fredrickson, Esq. HARMAN LAW LLC 3414 Peachtree Rd NE Suite 1250 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 554-0777 E-mail: mharman@harmanlaw.com efredrickson@harmanlaw.com CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Sobel" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Gina Carrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that pointing to oil's miraculous market turnaround, shareholders claim in a federal class action in Wilmington, Del. that the planned $3.2 billion acquisition of a Texas tycoon's company falls short. Filing suit in Delaware on March 22, lead plaintiff Alan Sobel notes that shares of Clayton Williams Energy have more than tripled over the past six months. The company's stock went from $29.53 to $103.98 in the half-year prior to the January announcement that Noble Energy Inc. would acquire all of Clayton stock, plus $500 million in debt, according to the complaint. The spike in stock value aligns with a surprising comeback for the industry. Forbes reported that the eponymous CEO of Clayton Williams Energy appeared poised for financial ruin when oil prices had plummeted to a decade low in early 2016. Now that prices are trending upward, Sobel says the deal with Noble "appears . . . unfair and inadequate" to company's shareholders. "The intrinsic value of the company's common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities in the proposed merger given the company's recent financial performance and prospects for future growth and earnings," the complaint alleges. Worse, says Sobel, board members attempted to pull the wool over shareholders' eyes by submitting a "materially incomplete and misleading" financial report to the Securities Exchange Commission. With shareholders putting the the buyout offer to a vote on April 24, the company filed an Amended S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC that Sobel says contained several omissions. Sobel argues that the monetary projections and other data crucial missing from the statement are crucial to shareholders making an informed decision on the fairness of the deal, including terms of confidentiality agreements between the two sides and a financial analysis on the buyout rendered by Goldman Sachs. The incomplete S-4 statement constitutes a violation of the federal Securities Exchange Act, which prohibits both outright falsehoods and the practice of misleading shareholders by omitting certain facts, according to complaint. Sobel wants the court to put a stop to the proposed transaction and to postpone the shareholder vote until Clayton Williams Energy execs pony up all the numbers relevant to the merger, including the Goldman Sachs valuation analysis. Individual defendants to the class action include the 84-year-old eponymous CEO of Clayton Williams Energy. Williams looked poised to trade the oil rigs for politics in 1990 when he held a huge lead in the Texas gubernatorial race. His campaign went awry, however, when he jokingly compared bad weather to rape. "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it," Williams had said. Representatives from Clayton Williams Energy did not return on March 27 a phone call seeking comment. The class is represented by James Banko of Faruqi & Faruqi. The case is captioned, ALAN SOBEL, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CLAYTON WILLIAMS ENERGY, INC., CLAYTON W. WILLIAMS, JR., MEL G. RIGGS, DAVIS L. FORD, Ph.D., P. SCOTT MARTIN, RONALD D. SCOTT, JORDAN R. SMITH, and NATHAN W. WALTON, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00312-UNA (D. Del., March 22, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiff: James R. Banko, Esq. Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel.: (302) 482-3182 Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com COOPER COMPANIES: Contact Lens Consumers Suits Still in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- The actions initiated by contact lens consumers are currently in discovery, according to The Cooper Companies, Inc.'s March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2017. Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CooperVision and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaints in December 2015. In June 2016, the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act was granted, but the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and other state laws was denied. The actions currently are in discovery. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the actions vigorously. At this time, the Company does not believe a loss or adverse effect on its financial condition is probable nor is any range of potential loss reasonably estimable. The Cooper Companies, Inc., is a global medical device company publicly traded on the NYSE Euronext. Cooper operates through its business units, CooperVision and CooperSurgical. CooperVision primarily develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of soft contact lenses for the worldwide vision correction market. CooperSurgical primarily develops, manufactures, markets medical devices and procedures solutions, and provides services to improve health care delivery to families. CVS PHARMACY: Calif. Judge Won't Certify 11 State Classes --------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. refused to certify 11 state classes in a national class action accusing CVS Pharmacy of cheating customers. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found the plaintiffs had not satisfied predominance, commonality and typicality requirements for certification, and gave them until April 24 to file an amended motion to certify, if they choose. "Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the class action procedure can resolve common questions, which predominate all the identified transactions. Certification would be inappropriate," Gonzalez Rogers wrote in the March 21 order denying class certifying and denying other motions to strike as moot. Lead plaintiff Christopher Corcoran sued CVS in August 2015, claiming it charged insured customers and their insurers up to four times more for generic prescription drugs than it charged uninsured customers. Corcoran said that by law, the co-pay that CVS charges insured customers cannot exceed its "usual and customary price" -- the amount it charges uninsured customers for a prescription. But CVS's co-pays do exceed that price, he said. In calculating a customary price, a pharmacy takes into account the most common prices it charges for drugs without insurance. The pharmacy then reports its customary price to insurers, and insurers and patients pay the pharmacy what they owe based on that price, according to the plaintiffs' motion to certify. In 2008, CVS launched its Health Savings Pass (HSP) program, a discount program for generic drugs aimed at uninsured patients. When CVS rolled it out, a 90-day supply of a covered drug cost $9.99. Corcoran said that CVS should have used that rate to calculate its customary price, but did not. In fighting certification, CVS argued that determining customary prices, and which contracts required it to report the HSP price as customary, would require analyzing thousands of individual contracts between it and insurers, because each contract contains a different definition of customary price. The plaintiffs maintained that the contracts all contained the same definition of customary price. "Plaintiffs do not persuade," Gonzalez Rogers wrote on March 23. "First, even ignoring contracts that expressly exclude membership programs from their definition of U&C [usual and customary], the showing before the court demonstrates significant variation with how the different contracts define U&C." She said several insurance executives have submitted declarations stating that they did not consider the HSP prices to be customary. Finally, Gonzalez Rogers found that four of the class representatives were not typical of the classes they sought to represent. CVS had argued that the four representatives were atypical because they did not buy a 90-day supply of drugs, and so paid less than the HSP price. The plaintiffs said the class representatives paid prorated prices based on the HSP price for 30- and 60-day supplies. Gonzalez Rogers called that argument "speculative," and added that the plaintiffs had not submitted a reference price for the prorated drugs. The lack of a reference price, she said, would subject the claims to individual analysis. The plaintiffs sought to certify 11 classes of CVS customers, in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. They are represented by Robert Gilmore with Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner; and CVS by Frank Heard with Williams & Connolly, both of Washington, D.C. Both attorneys declined to comment on March 24. CWI INC: Faces "Leclaire" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ LORI LECLAIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. CWI, INC. d/b/a CAMPING WORLD, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2017), alleges that instead of paying Plaintiff overtime, Camping World paid all of its parts coordinators a base salary and bonuses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Camping World is a camping and outdoor lifestyle retail company with significant operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Phone: 713-751-0025 Fax: 713-751-0030 E-mail: jbresler@fibichlaw.com mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Fax: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com DAVID BOULEY LLC: "Ahmed" Alleges FLSA Violation in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- Enam Ahmed, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. David Bouley LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02189 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff is a former food service employee of Defendant's restaurant. Defendant is a limited liability company owned and operated by Chef David Bouley that operated a number of restaurants and event spaces in New York City, including but not limited to the following: Bouley Restaurant, Bouley Test Kitchen and Bouley Botanical. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Filosa, Esq. Filosa Law Firm, PLLC 111 John Street, Suite 2510 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 256-1780 Fax: (212) 256-1781 Email: gfilosa@filosalaw.com DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Javier Tames, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. DE C.V. a/k/a Homex Development Corp., Gerardo De Nicolas Gutierrez, and Carlos Moctezuma Velasco, Case No. 1:17-cv-01416 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. DE C.V. develops, constructs, and sells housing properties in Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Brower Piven Disclose Class Action Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. de C.V. a/k/a/ Homex Development Corp. American Depositary Shares (ADSs) during the period between April 30, 2012 through May 5, 2016, inclusive. Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until May 15, 2017 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Homex ADSs during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated its revenue by 355% or roughly $3.3 billion by reporting fictitious sales of more than 100,000 homes, that between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated the number of units it sold by over 100,000 units or 317% of actual units sold, and that Homex and certain of its Headquarters Financial Reporting Personnel knowingly and intentionally engaged in a scheme to materially overstate Homex's revenues, homes sold, and other related financial items. According to the complaint, following the April 30, 2014 announcement that Homex had filed for bankruptcy protection; a May 2, 2014 announcement that the New York Stock Exchange determined to commence proceedings to delist American Depository Shares ("ADS's") and suspended trading of those ADSs; and a May 6, 2016 SEC filing revealing that the SEC had issued a Wells notice to the Company in connection with alleged anti-fraud, internal control and reporting violations and revealing that the Company's financial statements for 2010-2012 should not be relied upon, the value of Homex ADSs declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Homex ADSs purchased on or after April 30, 2012 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415- 6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. About Homex Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. de C.V. is a vertically integrated home-development company focused on affordable entry-level and middle-income housing in Mexico. Homex shares were suspended 2014, when a debt crisis and lack of demand for its homes prompted the company to file for bankruptcy. The Company emerged from bankruptcy proceedings in July 2015, and the national securities regulator CNBV has cleared its shares to trade again. DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Refuses to Certify Mortgage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on March 21 said investors seeking to hold Deutsche Bank AG liable for causing $3.1 billion of losses by failing to properly monitor 10 trusts backed by toxic residential mortgages cannot pursue their claims as a group. U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan said Belgium's Royal Park Investments SA/NV failed to show it was more likely than not that the proposed class was "sufficiently ascertainable" to justify class-action status. The two-page denial was without prejudice, meaning Royal Park and its law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd may seek class certification later. Judge Nathan kept a decision outlining her reasoning under seal, saying it may contain material that Royal Park believes should not be made public. She asked both sides to advise within two weeks whether all or part of that decision can be made public. Class certification can make it easier for plaintiffs to obtain higher recoveries at lower cost than if they sued individually. Royal Park accused Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, in its role as bond trustee, of ignoring "widespread" deficiencies in how loans underlying the trusts were underwritten and serviced, and failing to require that lenders buy back defective loans. The 10 trusts date from 2006 and 2007. Many investors have in recent years sued trustees, as well as lenders and underwriters, over losses on badly underwritten mortgages. The case is Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-04394. DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that DirecTV LLC asked an Illinois federal court on March 20 to toss a proposed class action accusing the satellite TV provider of trying to collect debts from consumers who'd never actually signed up for the service, saying the laws it allegedly broke don't apply in this instance. DirecTV's motion to dismiss said plaintiff Mary Arnold's Fair Credit Reporting Act claims fail because that law doesn't allow individuals to bring suits and that her claims under Illinois's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, or ICFA, also fail because she can't prove she was damaged when DirecTV allegedly sent her bills for a different Mary -- or that the alleged practice was deceptive or unfair. "First, plaintiff fails to allege any details about the alleged fraud or deception by DirecTV," the company said. "Second, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any deceptive statement by DirecTV." In the alternative, DirecTV also filed a simultaneous motion to strike the class allegations from the suit, saying Ms. Arnold "offers nothing more than 'mere speculation' to support" the number of consumers she says could have been affected by its debt collection practices. It also said the Illinois state law cannot provide the legal basis for a multistate class action, as Arnold proposes. Ms. Arnold filed the suit on Feb. 22 alleging DirecTV began sending her bills last year for a different Mary, Mary Rennie. Ms. Arnold says she's never been a customer of DirecTV, but the company refused to listen when she notified them of the mistake. Since then she says the debt has damaged her credit and been transferred to a collection agency, which is still trying to collect on her "delinquent account" despite her contention she's never used DirecTV in the first place. Ms. Arnold is suing DirecTV on two counts of violating the FCRA and one count of violating the ICFA. The collection agency, Enhanced Recovery Co., is also named in the suit. She proposes two classes, one consisting of consumers wrongfully billed for debts that weren't theirs, and the other of consumers Enhanced Recovery improperly tried to collect from. She estimates thousands of consumers nationwide could fall into the first category and hundreds in the second, but says she does not know the exact number in either case. A spokesman for AT&T Inc., which owns DirecTV, told Law360 the company "does not believe the lawsuit has merit." A representative for Arnold declined to comment on March 21. DirecTV said the FCRA claims fail because although the law prohibits collecting debts that have been disputed for reasons of identity theft, it also says private cases can't be brought for "failure by any person to comply" with those rules. "Such an alleged failure is precisely what plaintiff is asserting here," the company said. It said the other FCRA claim, accusing DirecTV of providing inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies, fails for roughly the same reason. For the ICFA claim, DirecTV said the issue is better litigated in state court. And even in federal court, the claim fails because Arnold doesn't allege any damages, or demonstrate DirecTV's actions were either deceptive or unfair, the company says. "To maintain an action under the ICFA, the plaintiff must actually be deceived by a statement or omission made by the defendant," the motion said, quoting the law. "Here, plaintiff does not allege that she was 'actually . . . deceived' by any 'statement or omission,'" only that the company may have made a mistake in pegging Mary Rennie's past-due account on Arnold. Arnold is represented by Shannon M. Geier of Geier Law LLC. DirecTV is represented by Hans J. Germann, Kyle J. Steinmetz and Christopher S. Comstock of Mayer Brown LLP. The case is Mary Arnold et al. v. DirecTV et al., case number 1:17-cv-01363, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Bremer Appeals "Wright" Suit Ruling to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Trisha Bremer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Molly Wright, et al. v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00249-SPC-MRM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Molly Wright, et al. v. Dyck- O'Neal, Inc., Case No. 17-11170, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Awaiting Appellant's CIP due on or before March 29, 2017, as to Appellant Trisha Bremer; and -- Awaiting Appellee's CIP due on or before April 12, 2017, as to Appellee Dyck-O'Neal, Inc.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TRISHA BREMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, f.k.a. Trisha Rohrs; and Plaintiffs MOLLY F. WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, f.k.a. Molly A. Bauer; SHAWN FISHER, KIMBERLY FISER, THOMAS PATTERSON, ANGELA MCDOUGALL, f.k.a. Angela Tobin, MICHAEL PIASECKI, CHRIS A. WIGLESWORTH, and DOROTHY WILLIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Carmen Dellutri, Esq. David W. Fineman, Esq. THE DELLUTRI LAW GROUP, PA 1436 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Ft. Myers, FL 33919-1049 Telephone: (239) 939-0900 Facsimile: (239) 939-0588 E-mail: cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com dfineman@dellutrilawgroup.com Defendant-Appellee DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., a Texas corporation, is represented by: Dale Thomas Golden, Esq. Charles James McHale, Jr., Esq. Joseph C. Proulx, Esq. GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC 201 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 251-5500 Facsimile: (813) 251-3675 E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com cmchale@gsgfirm.com GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Lambert" Suit over Skin Gel Label ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in Chicago claims General Nutrition Corp. labeled its Aloe Vera Skin Gel as 99 percent aloe vera gel containing aloe barbadensis leaf juice, but lab testing showed the product contained no actual aloe vera. The case is captioned, THERA LAMBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02149 (N.D. Ill., March 21, 2017). Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Katrina Carroll, Esq. E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. kshamberg@litedepalma.com Ismael T. Salam, Esq. isalam@litedepalma.com LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.750.1265 - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Tel: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com - and - Jason Thompson, Esq. Amy L. Marino, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com amarino@sommerspc.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com jberman@andersonwanca.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Tel: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C. First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0090 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Susan S. Brown, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 433-4949 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com sbrown@rocklawcal.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Lori G. Feldman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: denright@zlk.com lfeldman@zlk.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, #209 Madison, WI 53703 Tel: (608) 237-1775 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com GEO GROUP: Appeals Class Cert. Decision in "Menocal" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Defendant The Geo Group, Inc., filed an appeal from an order granting class certification in the lawsuit styled ALEJANDRO MENOCAL, MARCOS BRAMBILA, GRISEL XAHUENTITLA, HUGO HERNANDEZ, LOURDES ARGUETA, JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA, and DEMETRIO VALEGRA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-02887-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The appellate case is captioned as ALEJANDRO MENOCAL, MARCOS BRAMBILA, GRISEL XAHUENTITLA, HUGO HERNANDEZ, LOURDES ARGUETA, JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA, and DEMETRIO VALEGRA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 17-701, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 17, 2017, the District Court has certified a class of about 62,000 people, who claim they were forced to work for $1 a day while detained at a privately run immigrant detention center. In its petition for permission to appeal, Geo Group argues that the District Court's class certification presents legally unsettled issues of national importance and manifest errors that warrant immediate review. The Appellate Case asks the Tenth Circuit to decide whether the District Court properly certified classes authorizing an alleged 60,000 immigration detainees to seek monetary relief based on two novel theories: (1) Does a contractor operating a detention facility for the federal government compel "forced labor" in violation of a federal human trafficking statute by requiring detainees to periodically perform housekeeping chores, when that contractor and its housekeeping policies are subject to extensive federal contractual and regulatory requirements as well as direct federal supervision, and the housekeeping policy is both longstanding and judicially-accepted? (2) Is the contractor "unjustly enriched," and required to pay restitution to detainees for the detainees' participation in a federally-created, sponsored and supervised voluntary work program, when the settled expectation for decades has been that participants are provided a daily allowance of $1? Defendant-Petitioner The GEO Group, Inc. operates immigration detention facilities under contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, subject to extensive contractual, regulatory and statutory requirements. Since 1986, GEO has operated Colorado's Aurora Detention Center (the "Facility"), where this dispute arises. The Plaintiffs are current and former immigration detainees at the Facility. They have obtained certified classes on two theories: (1) the "Trafficking Claim," alleging that they are entitled to damages and restitution under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which the Defendant has allegedly violated by requiring detainees to perform housekeeping chores under an ICE-approved and -supervised policy; and (2) the "Unjust Enrichment Claim," alleging that GEO has been unjustly enriched, under Colorado law, by work ICE detainees performed under the federally-sanctioned Voluntary Work Program for the $1 daily allowance paid by GEO, authorized by Congress, and reimbursed by ICE.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by: Alexander N. Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE-DENVER 1535 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org - and - Andrew H. Turner, Esq. KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM 600 Grant Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 333-7751 E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com - and - Hans C. Meyer, Esq. MEYER LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 40394 1029 Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO 80204 Telephone: (303) 831-0817 E-mail: hans@themeyerlawoffice.com - and - R. Andrew Free, Esq. R. ANDREW FREE LAW OFFICE 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37209 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: Andrew@lmmigrantCivilRights.com - and - Brandt P. Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 595 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by: Dana Eismeier, Esq. BURNS, FIGA & WILL 6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1000 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: (303) 796-2626 E-mail: deismeier@bfwlaw.com - and - Mark Emery, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 799 9th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-0210 E-mail: mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Charles A. Deacon, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 300 Convent Street San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 270-7133 E-mail: charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com GERON CORP: Awaits Preliminary Approval of $6.25MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation awaits preliminary approval of its $6.25 million settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Geron Corporation and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated class action securities lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The securities class action lawsuit, captioned In re Geron Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01224-CRB, was initially filed in the California District Court on March 14, 2014 by certain stockholders of the Company on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from December 10, 2012, through and including March 11, 2014. On March 2, 2017, the parties to the Securities Class Action, through their respective counsel, executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") and related documents formalizing an agreement to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the Stipulation, in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in connection with the Securities Class Action, the Company has agreed to settle the Securities Class Action for $6.25 million in cash. The Company expects $6.0 million of the settlement amount to be paid by the Company's insurance providers and the remaining $250,000 to be paid by the Company. The settlement does not constitute any admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or any of the individual defendants. On March 2, 2017, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the terms and conditions of the settlement and the form of notice to all record holders and beneficial owners of the Company's common stock during the Proposed Class Period (the "Notice"), which included the Stipulation and related documents. The Notice filed by plaintiff's counsel includes, among other things, the general terms of the settlement, the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement amount, and the terms of the plaintiff's counsel fee application. The proposed settlement and the Stipulation remain subject to approval by the California District Court and certain other conditions. A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement is available in SEC at https://goo.gl/ZT5OjM Lead Plaintiff Vinod Patel is represented by: Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. Megan M. Sullivan, Esq. Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com msullivan@faruqilaw.com klenahan@faruqilaw.com - and - Barbara Rohr, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com Defendants Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom, and Stephen M. Kelsey are represented by: John C. Dwyer, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com - and - Ryan E. Blair, Esq. 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 Facsimile: (858) 550-6420 E-mail: rblair@cooley.com GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Disburses Real Property Taxes Under Protest --------------------------------------------------------------- LeAnne Kavanagh, writing for Cut Bank Pioneer Press, reports that Glacier County published a notice in a paper announcing the disbursement of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Real Property Taxes paid under protest under the Mitchell, et al. v. Glacier County and the State of Montana Class Action Lawsuit. According to Glacier County Treasurer Galen Galbreath, all of those protested taxes were disbursed to the appropriate funds in January and February. In a letter dated Feb. 13, the Glacier County Commissioners instructed Mr. Galbreath to disburse the protested taxes citing the dismissal of the class action lawsuit by District Judge Mike Menahan's for "lack of standing." In their letter the commissioners stated, "We are hereby directing you as Treasurer to remove the 2016 taxes protested based upon the Mitchell case. Money located in the tax protest fund should be delivered to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions, including but not limited to City of Cut Bank, Town of Browning, Glacier Conservation District, Northern Montana Joint Refuse District, Cut Bank School District 15, Browning School District 9, East Glacier Elementary School District 50 and Mountain View Elementary District 64." According to Mr. Galbreath, he has disbursed a total of $1,006,479.94 in protested taxes to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions. The commissioners stressed to Mr. Galbreath, "We believe it is important to note that tax protests for 2016 that are not based upon Mitchell et al. vs. Glacier County should not be removed from the protested tax funds." Mr. Galbreath said the balance of protested taxes not related to the class action lawsuit is $4,459,367.23 and those funds will be held in the Protested Tax Fund until those protests are resolved. Mr. Galbreath said those funds are all centrally-assessed protests. Lawrence Anderson, the Great Falls attorney representing Mitchell, et al., notified the attorneys for Glacier County and the State of Montana the case has not been dismissed and is "on appeal. The Montana Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case, and the case is not finally resolved." Mr. Anderson cited an Attorney General opinion in his letter to the attorneys, claiming Glacier County "has no authority over the funds paid under protest until the litigation is resolved." Mr. Anderson filed the appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Cause No. DA 16-0716, on Feb. 8, 2017. Mr. Anderson continued, "We have previously objected to the county's disbursement of moneys paid under protest during the pendency of this appeal via our letter to you of December 13, 2016. However, we have not even received the courtesy of a response to that letter." In his letter to Kirk Evenson, attorney for Glacier County, and Gary Zadick and James Zadick, attorneys for the State of Montana, Anderson concluded, "Unless we hear from you that the Glacier County Treasurer's Notice has been rescinded, we will proceed with whatever legal remedies available to protect the status quo in this matter." Mr. Evenson responded to Mr. Anderson in a letter dated March 17 and confirmed, "Glacier County did in fact disburse the 2015 and 2016 protested taxes which were protested by individual taxpayers" involved in the class action lawsuit against Glacier County and the State of Montana. Mr. Evenson pointed out Anderson failed to filed a motion for "stay or suspension of the Court's Order" dismissing the case the lack of standing. "Specifically, you did not file a motion in District Court for a stay of the Order pending appeal, for approval of a supersedeas bond or for an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting an injunction pending appeal. As a result, the taxes were disbursed to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions." Mr. Evenson concluded, ". . . Glacier County objects to your proposed motion or writ to prohibit disbursement of tax protest funds." HARBOR FREIGHT: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Sale Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Cheromcha, writing for TheDrive, reports that "discount" tools emporium Harbor Freight has settled a class action lawsuit over misleading sale prices, and depending on how often you shopped there between April 2011 and December 2016 you could be in line for up to 10 percent back on your total purchases during that time, reports Yahoo Finance. Here's the gist -- you know how you always see a higher "compare at" price listed alongside the sale price, so you can feel smart and savvy about getting such a great deal? Well, it turns those higher prices never existed in the first place. Also the Tooth Fairy isn't real. Shocking, I know. But plaintiff Jeffrey Beck wasn't going to take this deception lying down, so he sued on the grounds that Harbor Freight was violating consumer protection laws with its pricing tricks, and now you can reap the rewards of his determination if you're so inclined. The specific dates included in the settlement are April 8, 2011 to December 15, 2016. There are a couple paths to your just reward -- if you have itemized receipts (right), you can submit a claim for 20 percent of the "you saved" amount (in other words, the difference between the sale and comp price) in cash, or 30 percent of that on a gift card. Perhaps recognizing that almost all their stuff is priced like this, they're also allowing you to submit non-itemized credit or debit card statements for 10 percent cash back (or 12 percent in gift cards) on total purchases of "qualifying products." Finally, if you don't keep receipts and somehow paid for everything in cash, you can fill out a form to make a sworn statement confirming your claim and get a $10 gift card. Even with the cheap prices, it's easy to spend thousands of dollars there over the years, especially if you do your own wrenching. It's up to you to decide if you wouldn't have spent that much without the allure of the fake sales, or if you're satisfied with the affordability either way. HERITAGE OAKS: Defends "Garfield" Suit Over Merger with Pacific --------------------------------------------------------------- Heritage Oaks Bancorp is defending a shareholder lawsuit filed by Robert Garfield challenging its proposed merger with Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On December 12, 2016, the Company and Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("PPBI"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which the Company will be merged with and into PPBI, with PPBI surviving (the "Corporate Merger"), immediately followed by the merger of Heritage Oaks Bank with and into Pacific Premier Bank, the wholly-owned bank subsidiary of PPBI ("Pacific Premier"), with Pacific Premier surviving (the "Bank Merger"). On February 16, 2017, Robert Garfield, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a complaint seeking class action status in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Luis Obispo, against the Company, each of its directors and PPBI, entitled Robert Garfield vs. Heritage Oaks Bancorp, et. al. (Case No. 17cv0097). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties with regard to the proposed merger. Among other things, the complaint seeks class action status, a court order enjoining the Company and its directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger, disclosure of all material information to the Company's shareholders, compensatory or recessionary damages and the payment of attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that it has defenses to all of the claims and requested relief. The Company is unable to state whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is probable or remote. The Company is also unable to provide an estimate of the range or amount of potential loss (if the outcome should be unfavorable). The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Heritage Oaks Bancorp is a California corporation organized in 1994 and is registered as a bank holding company for Heritage Oaks Bank. HOMELAND SECURITY: Asylum-Seekers' Claims Stay in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Seattle, Wash., refused the government's request to throw out a class action brought by thousands of asylum-seekers who say immigration authorities didn't inform them of a one-year deadline for filing asylum claims and erected procedural roadblocks. U.S. District Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez said the asylum- seekers' claims should be heard in federal court, not immigration court as the government requested. "Plaintiffs are not asking this court to make any finding with respect to how immigration judges analyze the extraordinary circumstances exception or on the asylum applications themselves. Rather, they allege that defendants' action or inactions have deprived them of a statutory right to apply for asylum by foreclosing their opportunity to apply within the one year statutory time period," Martinez wrote in the 4-page order. Four named plaintiffs, refugees from Central and South America and the Caribbean, filed their due-process class action last year. They claim immigration agents never told them they had to file for asylum within one year after they entered the United States, and did not present the asylum-seekers with a viable path for meeting that deadline. Martinez granted class status to the group in January. The case is captioned, CONCELY del CARMEN MENDEZ ROJAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants. Case 2:16-cv-01024-RSM (WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE March 28, 2017). HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in "Reniger" Suit Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. on March 28 gave final approval to a class action settlement in which Hyundai promises to fix cars for 10 years and offer rebates toward buying or leasing replacement cars to settle claims it deceived buyers about a stalling defect in one of its SUVs. Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants will reimburse, on a claims-made basis, reasonable and documented Out-of-Pocket Costs, subject to, where applicable, the Maximum Reimbursement Amount, incurred by the Class. Class Members eligible to make a Claim are those who experienced a stall associated with the "929A Condition" up to mailing date of the Class Notice. Defendants agree that the Campaign 929A Software Update (or its functional equivalent) will remain available free-of-charge for 10 years after the date the Class Vehicles were first put into circulation as "new" vehicles. Defendants also will provide a special cash incentive, on a claims-made basis, to Class Members who wish to replace their Class Vehicles. The New Vehicle purchase/Lease Incentive Program provides Class Members who have experienced one documented 929A Condition stall a rebate of $250 to $1,000 on the purchase or lease of a new Hyundai vehicle, depending upon the specific new vehicle purchased or leased. The Enhanced Rebate Program doubles this incentive, providing a rebate of $500 to $2,000 (again, depending upon the new Hyundai vehicle purchased or leased) for those who have experienced at least two 929A Condition stalls, with at least one occurring after the implementation of Campaign 929A. Hyundai has the right to contest the Class Member's claim for an Enhanced Rebate Certificate if there is evidence in the submitted documentation, Hyundai's records, or through third party records to suggest that the claimed 929A Condition stall that post-dates the installation of the Campaign 929A Software Update on the Class Vehicle was the result of the improper or incomplete installation of the Campaign 929A Software Update. Rebate Certificates and Enhanced Rebate Certificates can be redeemed by sending proof of a new Hyundai vehicle purchase or lease within one year of the Rebate Certificate's issuance. Because the Certificates are paid by Hyundai, and because any particular Class Member's possession of a Certificate will be unknown to the dealer, there is no danger of the Certificate's value being factored into the deal (i.e., of the dealer offsetting the value of the certificate during price negotiations). Moreover, any dealer or customer incentives that otherwise would be available to the Class Member at the time of the new vehicle purchase or lease will remain available notwithstanding availability of the Rebate Certificate or Enhanced Rebate Certificate. The Court finds that the Settlement is not subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712 as a result of these cash rebates, which are made available to Class Members in addition to other substantial relief. The case is captioned, JULIA RENIGER, GREG BATTAGLIA, OREN JAFFE, LUCIA SAITTA and ANN MANCUSO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation, and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants. Case 4:14-cv-03612-CW (N.D. Cal. March 28, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Lionel Z. Glancy Esq. Mark S. Greenstone Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com INSYS THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on March 20 issued the following statement: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of INSYS Therapeutics, Inc. ("INSYS") (NASDAQ:INSY) between February 23, 2016 and March 15, 2017. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra/insys-therapeutics-inc-2 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) INSYS had overstated its 2015 net revenue; (2) INSYS had misstated its sales allowances for 2016; (3) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, INSYS public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in INSYS you have until May 16, 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. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. IVEST 360: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that an Ohio man has filed a class-action lawsuit against several Pennsylvania telemarketing companies, citing alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes. Sean Bauer filed a complaint on behalf of himself and others in similar situations on March 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Bauer alleges that Ivest 360 LLC, Fast Capital 360, Ivest 360 Syndication Group and other unknown entities called the plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he sustained damages from receiving unwanted calls on his cellular telephone in March 2015. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible for allegedly continuing to call the plaintiff even after he advised the callers that he was not interested in their services. The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks enjoin the defendant. Mr. Bauer also wants actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. He is represented by Arkady "Eric" Rayz -- ERayz@kalraylaw.com -- and Demetri A. Braynin -- DBraynin@kalraylaw.com -- of Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC in Huntingdon Valley. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case number 2:17-cv-01030-AB JACKSON HEWITT: Court Trims Claims in "Mardis" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned WANDA MARDIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON HEWITT et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-02115 (JLL) (JAD) (D.N.J.). Defendants include Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., ("JHTSI"), Jackson Hewitt, Inc., ("JHI"), Tax Services of America, Inc., ("TSA"), and Unknown Franchisees 1-100. Doing business as Jackson Hewitt, defendants collectively provide tax preparation services to Americans seeking to file their income taxes with the federal government and governments of their respective state governments. Throughout a network of over 6,300 locations nationwide, Jackson Hewitt is the second largest full-service tax preparation business in the United States with franchised and company-owned office locations throughout the country. JHI and TSA are subsidiaries corporations of parent corporation JHTSI. JHTSI and/or JHI operate though a tightly controlled system of franchisees. Of the franchisees, TSA is the largest, directly operating approximately 20% of the locations operating under the name Jackson Hewitt while the rest of the locations are run by other franchisees. At the beginning of each tax season, defendants employ teams of tax preparers, such as the plaintiffs, to draft and file clients' income tax returns. The tax preparers' term of employment runs for the length of the year's tax season. Before the tax season begins, the tax preparers are presented with a commission-based compensation plan, which is based upon the revenues generated by each individual tax preparer. Under the sales commission plan provided to the employees of JHTSI, JHI and TSA, employees receive a percentage of the net revenues the tax preparer employee generates for the defendants. For all plaintiffs, commissions are based on the net revenue generated by each individual plaintiff. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 tax season, in an effort to incentivize a specific customer base to employ their tax filing services and generate new business, defendants implemented a prepaid gift card promotion by which JHI and or JHTSI allegedly instructed tax preparers at TSA and franchisee locations to provide a $50 to $100 gift card to customers that utilize the company's tax filing services at a location doing business as Jackson Hewitt. At the end of the 2013-2014 tax season plaintiffs contend that each received substantially lower commissions than that of which they were entitled. Plaintiffs assert that they did not receive what they were due under the commission plan because defendants deducted the value of the gift card promotion from the net revenue earned by each plaintiff. Plaintiffs contend that at the end of the 2014-2015 tax season, defendants reduced the costs of the gift cards from the net revenues earned by the plaintiffs which again resulted in a lower commission payment to each plaintiff. Subsequently for the 2015- 2016 tax season, plaintiffs assert that similar to the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 tax seasons, defendants deducted the cost of the gift card promotion from the net revenues plaintiffs earned again resulting in lower commission payments to each individual plaintiff. Plaintiffs argue TSA and franchisees breached their contracts with plaintiffs, JHTSI and JHI have been unjustly enriched and JHI and/or JHTSI and TSA and JHI and/or JHTSI and the franchisees have violated the wage and hour laws of the various State Sub-Classes. A five count class action complaint was commenced by plaintiffs Mardis, Alexander, Morris, Dozier, Baker, Corbitt and Nichols, individually and on behalf of themselves alleging Breach of Contract against TSA or Unknown Franchisees (count I) and Unjust Enrichment against JHTSI and Jackson Hewitt (count II) on behalf of all plaintiffs. The three other counts included in the Complaint alleged violations of Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 337, et seq. (count III), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (count IV) and Tennessee Wage and Hour Law (count V). Thereafter, on June 16, 2016, defendants JHTSI, JHI and TSA filed the first motion to dismiss and on July 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Dickson granted by order plaintiffs' unopposed request for leave to file an amended complaint in lieu of a response to defendants' first motion to dismiss. The eleven-count amended complaint was filed on August 22, 2016, including six additional state law claims on behalf of newly joined named plaintiffs and alleging violations of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (count VI), Pennsylvania Wage and Hour Law (count VII), California Wage and Hour Law (count VIII), South Carolina Wage and Hour Law (count IX), North Carolina Wage and Hour Law (count X), and Oklahoma Wage and Hour Law (count XI). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6). Judge Linares granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss counts I and II of plaintiffs' amended complaint is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI is granted without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the opinion to cure the pleading deficiencies. In denying the motion to dismiss as to counts I and II, Judge Linares agrees with the plaintiffs and finds that it is not clear that a valid waiver is present and when interpreting a contract, it is well established that the contract be interpreted as against the drafter. In the interest of fairness and with public policy considerations in mind, the court finds that the plaintiffs did not validly waive their rights as against TSA or any unknown franchisees. In count II, the court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently plead the elements of an unjust enrichment claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Linares's opinion dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/lMggU8 from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON -- PHILIP D. STERN -- at STERN THOMASSON LLP; BRADLEY KEITH KING -- bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- at AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC Defendants, represented by KEVIN JOSEPH O'CONNOR -- koconnor@pecklaw.com -- JOSEPH MICHAEL VENTO -- jvento@pecklaw.com -- at PECKAR & ABRAMSON, PC JBS S.A.: Faces "LeonForte" Suit over Tainted-Meat Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------- Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that battling charges in Brazil that it bribed food inspectors to overlook rotting chicken, meat-processing giant JBS now has a class in Philadelphia of livid shareholders to fight. The federal complaint filed on March 23 in Philadelphia caps off what has been a bad week for the world's largest meat processor. JBS saw its shares drop 9.2 percent on March 17, 2017, after Reuters reported that morning its offices had been raided by Brazilian authorities following a two-year bribery investigation. In a follow-up article that night on what authorities are calling "Operation Weak Flesh," Reuters reported that seemingly unprecedented scandal threatens $12 billion in annual exports. Both the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal published articles on the raids as well, according to the March 22 complaint by investor Leonforte Holdings. The articles quote investigators as having found 40 separate incidents of meatpackers bribing inspectors to overlook "unsanitary practices such as processing rotten meat and running plants with traces of salmonella." In some cases, according to the second Reuters article, the bribed inspectors even allowed meatpacking employees "to enter government offices, access computers and issue their own export certificates." The exports are believed to have been directed at markets in Europe, China and the Middle East, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service says its market was protected by rigorous inspection on all imported meats. Accusing the Sao Paolo-based JBS of violating the Securities Exchange Act,, lead plaintiff Leonforte says the company misrepresented its quality control in multiple filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "To ensure the quality, health and sustainability of its entire line of products, JBS has rigorous processes that permeate its entire chain of production," the company wrote in a 2014 annual report. "Quality is an obsession for JBS. It is a fundamental value that permeates the Company's culture and is present in all of its production processes," it wrote in the next year's report. JBS netted around $55 billion in profit in 2016. In addition to the company, the class action names as defendants JBS CEO Wesley Mendoca Batista and Gilberto Tomazoni, the global president of its operations management team. The class is represented by Jacob Goldberg of the Rosen Law Firm in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. Goldberg declined to comment, and JBS spokesman Cameron Bruett has not return a call requesting comment. The case is captioned, LEONFORTE HOLDINGS LTD., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JBS S.A., WESLEY MENDONCA BATISTA, and GILBERTO TOMAZONI, Case 2:17-cv-01288-LDD (E.D. Pa., March 22, 2017) Counsel for Plaintiff: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com JELD-WEN HOLDING: Settlement Funds Already Credited to Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- All settlement funds have now been credited to claimant's respective accounts in accordance with JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.'s settlement of the class action lawsuits filed by members of the JELD-WEN, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership and Retirement Plan, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The JELD-WEN ESOP Plan, Administrative Committee, and individual trustees were sued by three separate groups of former employees and members of the ESOP for alleged violations relating to the management and distribution of the ESOP funds. These matters were pled as class actions and none of the cases were certified. In January 2015, the Company executed settlement agreements with applicable parties resulting in the Company's recording $5.0 million in settlement expense in December 2014. Pursuant to the agreements, the Company accrued a $15.7 million liability to the plaintiffs in other accrued expenses and a $10.7 million insurance receivable in accounts receivable. In June 2015, the Company paid all settlement funds into an escrow account. On October 19, 2015, the court provided final approval of the settlement in all respects. The Company received $10.7 million from insurance carriers on December 1, 2016. All settlement funds have now been credited to claimant's respective accounts. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., is one of the world's largest door and window manufacturers. The Company designs, produces, and distributes an extensive range of interior and exterior doors, wood, vinyl, and aluminum windows, and related products for use in the new construction and R&R of residential homes and, to a lesser extent, non-residential buildings. LA CIMA RESTAURANTS: "Poole" Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------------- Kayla Poole and Holly Hilton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. La Cima Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Twin Peaks, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00469-SGC (S.D. Cal., March 27, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Plaintiffs were employed as Tipped Employees by the Defendant. Due to Defendant's unlawful practices concerning gratuities, including its failure to properly inform Tipped Employees of its intention to utilize a tip credit and specifying the precise amount it was taking, and failing to guarantee that Tipped Employees earned sufficient tips to claim the tip credit, Defendant has improperly applied a tip-credit against the wages paid to Plaintiff and current and former Tipped Employees, thus paying them less than the mandated minimum wage, says the complaint. Defendant La Cima Restaurants, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company that operates approximately 15 Twin Peaks restaurant under the trade name Twin Peaks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Clark, Esq. Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb The Kress Building 301 19th St. No. Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 314-0500 Fax: (205) 254-1500 Email: bclark@wigginschilds.com - and - Allan L. Armstrong, Esq. Armstrong Law Center, LLC The Berry Building 2820 Columbiana Road Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 - and - Darrell Cartwright, Esq. Cartwright Law Center The Berry Building 2820 Columbiana Road Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 LAFAYETTE STREET: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- SAUL HERRERA and HUGO ORDONEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a LAFAYETTE GRAND CAFE & BAKERY, LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS II, LLC d/b/a LAFAYETTE GRAND CAFE & BAKERY, NOHO HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a NOHO HOSPITALITY GROUP, ERIC MELO, GUSTAVO DIAZ, LUCIANO DUCO, LUKE OSTROM, NICHOLAS LORENTZ, BRYAN NASWORTHY, and DOMINIC "DOE" (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01776 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for minimum wages, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, spread of hours pay for workdays lasting 10 hours or more, for failing to provide wage notices as required by the NYLL, and for illegally and fraudulently manipulating employee clock-in and clock-out times to reduce the number of Plaintiffs' hours recorded in business records. Defendant LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS, LLC owns and operates Lafayette Grand Cafe & Bakery, a restaurant. The work performed by Plaintiffs included handling food and washing dishes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Flushing, NY Jian Hang, Esq. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: 718-353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com LEIDOS: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Funds' Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Supreme Court took up a class action on March 27, brought by retirement and pension funds that lost money in what has been called "the single largest fraud ever perpetrated on the city of New York." SAIC, short for Science Applications International Corp., had been the lead contractor for New York City's automated payroll system, known as CityTime. Widespread corruption soon brought federal charges against several CityTime executives, however, and the system itself was made to pay $500 million in restitution and penalties. In the fallout of the scandal, six retirement and pension funds led by the Indiana Public Retirement System accused SAIC and five of its executives of misleading investors about the corporation's liabilities for employee fraud. Though a federal judge denied the funds' motions for relief on judgment, the Second Circuit partially reversed that decision last year. The March 2016 ruling said two of SAIC's filings may have been misleading: the corporation's Financial Accounting Standard No. 5 and Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K. "We conclude that the allegations support the inference that SAIC acted with at least a reckless disregard of a known or obvious duty to disclose when, as alleged, it omitted this material information from its March 2011 10-K in violation of FAS 5 and Item 303," U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier wrote for a three- judge panel. Per its custom, the Supreme Court did not issue a comment on March 27, in taking up the case. Docket records show that the class is represented by Douglas Wilens, an attorney with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in Boca Raton, Florida. SAIC, now known as Leidos, is represented by Andrew Tulumello of the Washington firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. A spokeswoman for the law firm noted that Leidos has cooperated fully in the Justice Department's investigation and "implemented a first-rate compliance program." Citing recent Leidos accomplishments, the spokeswoman noted that it was one of two companies to win the Pentagon's $9 billion health care modernization contract, as well as several Air Force contracts. Leidos also received more money than any other single information-technology vendor on three of the five key IT contracts within the Defense Health Agency. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is represented by Goodwin Procter attorney William Jay, also of Washington. The National Association of Manufacturers is represented by Edward Joseph Fuhr of the Richmond, Virginia, firm Hunton & Williams. A federal jury ultimately convicted Mark Mazer, an ex-consultant for the city's payroll office, and his associates Dimitry Aronshtein and Gerard Denault, of conspiring to defraud the city into paying more than $700 million for a project originally budget at $63 million. The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is LEIDOS, INC. V. IN PUBLIC RETIREMENT, ET AL., No. 16-581. LLR INC: Faces "Goodwin" Suit over Defective Leggings ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Cleveland that clothing company LuLaRoe sells leggings made with a special brushing technique intended to make them "buttery soft," but the method actually weakens fibers and causes the leggings to rip, tear and form holes immediately. The case is captioned, CAITLIN GOODWIN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 577 Brigton Drive Berea, OH 44017 Plaintiff, vs. LLR, INC. D/B/A LULAROE C/O INCORP SERVICES, INC. 5716 Corsa Ave, Ste. 110 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Defendant. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Tel: (440) 352-3391 Fax: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - and - Nolan T. James Jr, Esq. Nolan James Legal Group LTD. 16651 Selby Cir Strongsville, OH 44136 Tel: (330) 237-9999 E-mail: nolan@nolanjameslaw.com LOUISIANA: Sued Over Tangipahoa Parish I-12 Flooding ---------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a Tangipahoa Parish man has filed a class action against the state over flooding allegedly caused by the construction of an interstate highway in the parish. Levi E. Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on March 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against State of Louisiana and the Department of Transportation and Development alleging that they violated the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. According to the complaint, the defendants constructed a section of Interstate Highway 12 in Tangipahoa Parish across a flood plain. The suit states the construction caused flooding in 1983 and twice in 2016 that inundated the property of thousands in the parish. The plaintiff holds the state of Louisiana and the Department of Transportation and Development responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to take reasonable care regarding the construction, use and control of the highway and wrongfully took said property without just compensation. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, along with costs of this suit and all other relief that are just and proper. He is represented by Eric R. Nowak of Harrell & Nowak LLC in New Orleans and Byard Edwards Jr. in Hammond. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Case number 3:17-cv-00138 MACHINE ZONE: 4th Circuit Affirms GoW Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Queenin, Esq., of Nixon Peabody LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that players who lost "virtual gold" in the virtual casino of a mobile video game did not lose real money and, therefore, could not bring a class action under Maryland's gambling loss recovery statute, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law Sec. 12-110 (the Loss Recovery Statute). The decision provides guidance to developers on how to avoid being accused of creating or supporting unlawful gambling or being liable under gambling loss recovery statutes. In Mia Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc., No. 15-cv- 2469 (4th Cir.), a Maryland resident filed a class action against Machine Zone, Inc., the developer of the mobile gaming app Game of War: Fire Age (GoW) -- one of the top-grossing apps in recent years (and perhaps most well-known for its high-profile advertising campaign featuring Kate Upton). GoW is a multiplayer online strategy video game that centers on a player building an empire and waging battle against an opposing player's empire. To be successful in battle in GoW, players must progress through a leveling system in order to acquire and upgrade items, resources and abilities for use in battles. When a new level is reached, players, for example, can create new buildings, add to a fortress, produce more troops or acquire new weapons. GoW relies on a "freemium" pricing strategy, meaning while it is free to download the app and play the game, players can spend real money to purchase "virtual gold" -- ranging from $4.99 for 1,200 pieces of virtual gold to $99.99 for 20,000 pieces of virtual gold -- that players use to "speed up" their progress through levels and acquire new items and resources for use in battle. Importantly for this case, in addition to using virtual gold to "level up," GoW allows players to spend virtual gold on "chips" for use on a prize wheel in the game's virtual casino. The virtual prizes include virtual items and resources for use in battle, as well as additional virtual chips or virtual gold. Players who spin the virtual wheel have no control over the outcome of the spin and, thus, no skill on the part of the player influences what virtual prize the player will receive. This virtual casino aspect of the game is what gave rise to the putative class action complaint. The complaint alleged that class members lost money participating in an unlawful "gaming device" under the Loss Recovery Statute -- specifically, the portion of GoW that allows players to spin the virtual wheel to win virtual prizes for use in the battle-based portion of the game. The complaint sought recovery of alleged gambling losses the class members incurred from spinning the virtual wheel --specifically, the difference between the amount of money paid to spin the virtual wheel, and the monetary value of the virtual prizes she won. The complaint also asserted claims under California's unfair competition law, as well as a common law claim of unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the complaint at the pleading stage before ruling on plaintiff's request to certify a class action, concluding that the plaintiff did not "lose money" when she "spun" the virtual wheel and, therefore, had failed to state a claim under the Loss Recovery Statute. The district court similarly dismissed the claim under California's unfair competition law and the claim for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff appealed only from the district court's dismissal of her claim under the Loss Recovery Statute. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. While the court assumed, without deciding, that the virtual casino in GoW was a prohibited "gaming device" under the Loss Recovery Statute, the court found that that the plaintiff did not meet the statute's requirement that a claimant "lose money." According to the court, the plaintiff did not lose real money in the virtual casino. While she paid real money to obtain virtual gold -- which she later used to accrue virtual chips for use in the game's virtual casino -- the virtual chips were not redeemable for money and could be used only in GoW. In contrast to real -- world casinos, which operate by converting cash into chips and then converting chips back into cash, GoW did not convert chips back into cash. In fact, Machine Zone's terms of service expressly stated that "[V]irtual Currency and Virtual Goods may never be redeemed for 'real world' money, goods or other items of monetary value from Machine Zone or any other person." Furthermore, according to the court, the "lose money" requirement meant that there must be a "winner" of the money plaintiff sought to recover. Here, the developer of GoW retained the real money that the plaintiff paid for virtual gold regardless of the outcome of the virtual spin. If plaintiff spun the wheel and won "resources" of "lesser value" than virtual gold, as she claimed she did, Machine Zone did not win money as a result. Conversely, according to the court, Machine Zone did not lose money if the plaintiff spun the virtual wheel and won high-value resources or more virtual gold. In short, the only loss that plaintiff sustained was when she chose to spend real-world dollars in exchange for a nontransferable license to play with virtual currency in a virtual world. The takeaway from the court's ruling is that developers must ensure that in-game purchases for virtual items and currencies are available and used only within a given online game. The outcome in this case may have been different had Machine Zone created or facilitated a "secondary market," whereby players could trade or sell in-game items for real money. As the court pointed out, a successful GoW player could sell her account for sale on a secondary market, such as eBay, Facebook, and other websites, for hundreds, and, sometimes, thousands of dollars. However, only a player's entire account (which includes the player's progress in the game) -- and not simply virtual gold and chips -- could be sold in the secondary market and, at any rate, there was no indication in the decision that Machine Zone facilitated this secondary market. Instead, as mentioned before, Machine Zone's terms of service expressly stated that its virtual currency could not be redeemed for real world money. The allegation that a developer created an unlawful gambling market by facilitating a secondary market for the sale of in-game purchases underlies the ongoing class action suit against Valve Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The well-publicized suit relates to sales of "skins" for use in its game, Counter Strike: Global Offensive (CO:GO). Skins are purely cosmetic additions to weapons that do not affect gameplay (e.g., different colors, textures or finishes). The suit concerns Valve's creation of a marketplace called Steam Community Market that allowed users to buy, sell and trade skins from each other using virtual currency (that users purchased with real money). Valve allowed CO:GO players to link their Steam account to third-party websites. Some of which, according to the lawsuit, allowed users to gamble using skins on CO:GO matches, while others offered virtual casino-style games, jackpots, and lotteries. According to the suit, the skins were the casino chips that had monetary value outside the game itself, because of the ability to convert them directly into cash. The suit alleges that Valve "[k]nowingly allowed, supported, facilitated[] and/or sponsored illegal gambling" by allowing CO:GO players to link their individual Steam accounts to these third-party websites, and brings claims under Washington's consumer protection statute and gambling loss recovery statute, as well as claims for negligence and unjust enrichment. The news of the class action against Valve attracted the attention of regulatory bodies. This past fall, the Washington State Gambling Commission directed Valve to stop facilitating the use of skins for gambling activities through its Steam platform. The Norwegian Gaming Authority published a note stating that a website that allows skin betting may be in violation of Norwegian law. In a discussion paper, the UK Gaming Commission had raised similar concerns. Valve, for its part, has denied any illegal activity. While other game developers -- including Psyonix, Inc., the maker of the popular Rocket League -- have refrained from Steam Marketplace integration with third- party websites for trading and selling upgrades/skins to avoid similar allegations that they inadvertently created a gambling industry, the fact remains that potential plaintiffs, regulators and, perhaps, prosecutors are paying attention. Well-intentioned additions to popular games can have unintended effects. Developers must ensure game micro-transactions do not lead to the creation of derivative gambling markets and, if so, that developers do not run afoul of any jurisdiction's regulations and anti-gambling laws. MDL 2243: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Suits over Fosamax Fractures ---------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Baker, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a sweeping reversal against the drugmaker Merck, the Third Circuit revived hundreds of class actions by people whose thigh bones shattered while they were taking the osteoporosis drug Fosamax. The multidistrict litigation turns on whether Merck Sharp & Dohme had a duty to include a warning on Fosamax labels about the drug's risk of femoral fractures. Merck nearly dodged the case altogether, however, thanks to a 2009 decision in the case Wyeth v. Levine. In that case, the Supreme Court found that federal law pre-empts consumers from bringing failure-to-warn claims under state law when there is "clear evidence" that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved the warning that a plaintiff claims was necessary. Though a federal judge in New Jersey granted Merck summary judgment on the remaining Fosamax cases based on Wyeth, the Third Circuit overturned that ruling in an 89-page opinion on March 22. "Preemption is an affirmative defense, and Merck has not carried its burden to prove that it is entitled to that defense as a matter of law," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for a three-person panel. "The Wyeth 'clear evidence' standard is demanding and fact- sensitive. It requires the factfinder to predict a highly probable outcome in a counterfactual world and, therefore, requires a court sitting in summary judgment to anticipate both the range of conclusions that a reasonable juror might reach and the certainty with which the juror would reach them." Merck contended that the law was on its side since it had in fact proposed a revision to the Fosamax label that would have included a warning about the risk of bone fractures. Though the FDA rejected the proposal in 2009, Fuentes said this does not put Merck in the clear. "The burden and the responsibility to correct a drug label rests with the manufacturer, not the FDA," he wrote. Once the FDA rejected Merck's proposal, the ball was back in Merck's court to submit a revised, corrected proposal." For the appeals cour, the award of summary judgment to Merck was premature. "Here, plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the FDA would have approved a properly worded warning about the risk of thigh fractures -- or at the very least, to conclude that the odds of FDA rejection were less than highly probable," Fuentes wrote. The case is captioned, In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243. MEDTRONIC PLC: Awaits Minn. Court Decision in "Merenstein" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company awaits decision, which is expected to be entered in 2017 by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in the consolidated lawsuit filed by Lewis Merenstein and Kenneth Steiner, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 27, 2017. On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected in calendar year 2017. Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology, services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people around the world. The Company's primary products include those for cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma, urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and diabetes conditions. MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the consolidated case commenced by West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace to the District Court for further proceedings, Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the quarter period ended January 27, 2017. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology, services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people around the world. The Company's primary products include those for cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma, urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and diabetes conditions. MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Matters Underway in Sprint Fidelis Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the quarter period ended January 27, 2017, that pretrial proceedings are still underway in the lawsuit related to Sprint Fidelis. In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology, services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people around the world. The Company's primary products include those for cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma, urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and diabetes conditions. MEDTRONIC PLC: Remaining INFUSE-Linked Claims to Be Tried in 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the quarter period ended January 27, 2017, that certain of the remaining claims in the INFUSE Litigation could proceed to trial beginning in calendar year 2017. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of March 1, 2017, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 4,300 of these claims, and certain of the remaining claims could proceed to trial beginning in calendar year 2017. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology, services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people around the world. The Company's primary products include those for cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma, urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and diabetes conditions. MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit by St. Paul Teachers' Fund Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit initiated by the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association against a subsidiary of Medtronic Public Limited Company remains pending, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 27, 2017. On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against HeartWare International, Inc., on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about, among other things, HeartWare's response to a June 2014 FDA warning letter, the development of the Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of HeartWare's stock during the Class Period. In August of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology, services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people around the world. The Company's primary products include those for cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma, urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and diabetes conditions. MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 11,300 of Pelvic Mesh Litigation Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of March 1, 2017, Medtronic Public Limited Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 11,300 of Pelvic Mesh Litigation claims, according the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017. The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In July 2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries. As of March 1, 2017, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 11,300 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology, services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for millions of people around the world. The Company's primary products include those for cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma, urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and diabetes conditions. METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Class Suit Challenges American Axle Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class of shareholders claims in a federal lawsuit in Detroit that metal parts maker Metaldyne's proposed $1.6 billion sale to American Axle & Manufacturing undervalues Metaldyne stock by more than $8 a share. The lead plaintiff is Brian Zimmer. The defendants are Metaldyne Performance Group Inc., George Thanopoulos, Kevin Penn, Loren Easton, Michael Fisch, Nick Bhambri, William Jackson, Jeffrey Stafeil and John Pearson Smith. The case is captioned, BRIAN ZIMMER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. METALDYNE PERFORMANCE GROUP INC., GEORGE THANOPOULOS, KEVIN PENN, LOREN EASTON, MICHAEL FISCH, NICK BHAMBRI, WILLIAM JACKSON, JEFFREY STAFEIL, and JOHN PEARSON SMITH, Defendants. 2:17-cv-10911-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich., March 22, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq. ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC 14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170 Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Tel: (313) 821-5905 Fax: (313) 821-5906 E-mail: Anthony@aldplc.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Xbox Case in June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed support on March 21 for Microsoft Corp's bid to fend off class action claims by Xbox 360 owners who say the videogame console gouges discs because of a design defect. Microsoft told the court in oral arguments that the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2015 ruling allowing console owners to appeal the dismissal of their class action lawsuit was unfair to defendants. Typically parties cannot appeal a class certification ruling until the entire case has reached a conclusion. But the 9th Circuit allowed the console owners to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit so they could immediately appeal the denial of a class certification. Microsoft lawyer Jeff Fisher said defendants could not use this maneuver because they cannot voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit if they want to get an automatic appeal of a decision granting class certification. Class action cases can lead to larger damages or broader remedies than individual lawsuits. The prospect of winning large damages in a class action can be the only way for consumers to find lawyers to take their cases, so a denial of this certification can effectively end some lawsuits. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emerged as the harshest critic of the 9th Circuit ruling. She suggested allowing plaintiffs to manufacture a final judgment to trigger an automatic appeal could have negative repercussions, like permitting parties to skip over the district court on a legal question. The Xbox console owners filed a proposed class action against Microsoft in federal court in 2011, saying the design of the console was defective and that its optical disc drive could not withstand even small vibrations. They said this caused game discs to spin out of control and become scratched even under normal playing conditions, making them unusable. Microsoft has sold tens of millions of Xbox 360 consoles since introducing them in 2005. The company said class certification was improper because just 0.4 percent of Xbox owners reported disc scratches, and that misuse was the cause. A federal judge in Seattle dismissed the class action claims in 2012. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of the term in June. MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Grills Lawyers on Rule 23 Issue ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 grilled lawyers in a high- profile class action about a controversial procedural tool that allows plaintiffs to appeal a class certification order by dismissing their own case. The case, Microsoft v. Baker, is one in which the Supreme Court delayed oral arguments after Justice Antonin Scalia died last year. The issue is a critical one in class actions, where certification rulings can make or break the case. In many cases, plaintiffs attorneys have little desire to continue pursuing individual claims once they lose class certification. The 2011 case involved alleged defects in Xbox 360. A federal judge in Washington had granted Microsoft's motion to strike the class claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory review of that order. The plaintiffs, rather than press their individual claims, voluntarily dismissed the case, which allowed them to appeal the order. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district judge had abused his discretion, remanding the case, but made no finding as to whether class certification was appropriate. On March 21, plaintiffs attorney Peter Stris -- peter.stris@strismaher.com -- fielded numerous questions about the procedural move his clients used, including how many circuits permitted such a tactic and whether it ran afoul of a federal rule granting appellate courts discretionary review over interlocutory appeals of class certification orders. "The rule makers went through a lot of work to figure out what to do with an interlocutory ruling on class action status. And it came up with 23(f)," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, referring to the provision in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. "And this device seems to be just a way to get around 23(f)." Mr. Stris, founding partner of Stris & Maher in Los Angeles, denied that the move was "an end run around Rule 23." Without it, he said, class actions involving small amounts of monetary damages due each class member would be impossible to pursue. "You're going to have small dollar value individual claims that are abandoned without regard to merit," he told the justices. But Microsoft counsel Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School, cautioned that the tactic, if approved, could be applied not just in class actions but "to any pretrial order on which the plaintiff would be willing to bet their case." More to the point, Microsoft argued in its briefs that the tactic gives plaintiffs an unfair advantage since defendants don't have the option to dismiss the case if it goes the other way. The defense bar has long sought unsuccessfully to push for automatic, rather than discretionary, appeals of class certification rulings. Automatic appeals of class certification rulings made its way into a class action reform bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed this month. And in public comments to a civil rules committee that is weighing the first proposed amendments since 2003 to Rule 23, many in the defense bar noted that most appeals courts, while they have discretion to do so, don't take up class certification decisions. That's exactly what happened to the plaintiffs in the Microsoft case, leaving them with the unenviable options of pursuing their individual claims to a final judgment or dismissing their case. Although class certification could effectively wipe out the plaintiffs' case, Fisher argued that the Supreme Court has rejected that argument as a means to appeal. In a 1978 decision called Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, the Supreme Court rejected the so-called death knell doctrine in finding that an appeals court should not have reviewed a decertification order. Mr. Stris countered that Livesay focused on interlocutory appeals, not final judgments. "That's the whole enchilada in my view," he told the justices. He also said the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Microsoft case only on the condition that they would appeal the class claims order. But the justices questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to do that. After all, in regular appeals, parties argue why judgment should not have been entered against them, Chief Justice John Roberts noted. "But you told the district court to enter a judgment against you, so you can't argue that it shouldn't have done that," he said. MICROSOFT CORP: Win 10 Update Destroyed Hard Drive, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class of Illinois PC users claims upgrading to the new Windows 10 operating system destroyed their hard drive or caused them to lose data, forcing them to either buy a new computer or pay for repairs. Microsoft released the latest version of its ubiquitous operating system, Windows 10, in July 2015. For a year following its release, Microsoft offered all Windows users a free upgrade to the new operating system. The company aggressively marketed its new product by inserting advertising pop-ups for Windows 10 into users' security updates to their prior operating system. After installing a system update, a Windows popup box appeared on users' screens several times a day offering them a free upgrade to Windows 10. PC users say the ads were difficult to uninstall, even for a savvy computer user, and offered no option to refuse an upgrade or block future ads. In some cases, users reported that Windows 10 installed itself without their approval, according to a lawsuit filed on March 23, in Chicago federal court. Further, once users installed Windows 10, there was no way for a user to reverse the process and go back to their prior operating system. "Allegedly the Windows 10 installer genie checks the consumer's computer for compatibility; it does not, however, check the condition of the PC and whether or not the hard drive can withstand the stress of the Windows 10 installation," or whether a user's third-party software is compatible with the new system, according to the complaint. Lead plaintiff Stephanie Watson says her hard drive failed after Windows 10 installed without her express approval, and she had to buy a new computer. Co-plaintiff Robert Saiger elected to upgrade his computer but his existing applications ceased working after the installation, the complaint states. A third plaintiff, Howard Goldberg, says he upgraded his system after clicking "no" to daily popup ads on his computer for six months. "After three attempts to download Windows 10, each of which tied up his computer for extended periods of time, Goldberg's computer was damaged, and Windows 10 was not actually downloaded and functional," the lawsuit states. Goldberg claims he had to pay Microsoft to make his computer work again. Windows 10 is now running on about 400 million devices. On March 23, lawsuit seeks punitive damages for all Illinois residents who suffered loss of data or damage to their computer within 30 days of a Windows 10 upgrade. It asserts claims for breach of warranty, product liability, negligence, and consumer fraud. The proposed class is represented by Daniel Edelman with Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin in Chicago. In response to the lawsuit, a Microsoft spokesperson said, "The Windows 10 free upgrade program was a choice designed to help people take advantage of the most secure, and most productive Windows. Customers had the option not to upgrade to Windows 10. If a customer who upgraded during the one year program needed help with the upgrade experience, we had numerous options including free customer support and 31-days to roll back to their old operating system. We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit." MINI MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Smith" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mini Mart, Inc., d/b/a "Loaf 'N Jug," and The Kroger Co., Case No. 1:17-cv-00671 (D. Col., March 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week and 12 hours per day, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Class consists of Kroger employees who were required to drive to the stores of Kroger's competitors to observe and record the gas prices of Kroger's competitors on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, and were required to deliver money to a bank on a daily or weekly basis. The Defendants own and operate 175 "Loaf 'N Jug" convenience stores, with stores in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Adam M. Harrison, Esq. THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com AHarrison@sawayalaw.com MEDITERRANEAN KITCHENS: "Trujillo" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Fidel Trujillo, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. Mediterranean Kitchens, Inc. dba Pita Inn and Falah Tabahi, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01887 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was not paid his earned overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other employees straight-time wages for all hours worked weekly. Defendants operate a restaurant commonly known as "Pita Inn." Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher and busboy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 312-878-1302 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com MINOR LEAGUE: Judge Recertifies Collective & Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Devin Rauchwerger, Esq. -- Devin.Rauchwerger@jacksonlewis.com -- and Gregg E. Clifton, Esq. -- Gregg.Clifton@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that Federal Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero struck a blow to MLB when he reversed course on his earlier decision and recertified a minor league collective and class action against MLB. In July 2016, the court decertified the minor league collective and class action in Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., No. 14-CV-00608-JCS. However, on August 4, 2016, the Court granted in part the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, giving them the opportunity to narrow the class definitions and address the court's concerns expressed in its July decision. The previously proposed class included "All persons who under a Minor League Uniform Player contract, work or worked for MLB or any MLB franchise as a minor league baseball player within the relevant state at any time." The court found too many individualized issues to certify the class. The new classes approved by the court include a Fair Labor Standards Act collective consisting of minor league players participating in the California league, spring training, instructional league, or extended spring training on or after February 7, 2011. The court also recertified a California class consisting of minor league players who participated in the California league on or after February 7, 2010. In reversing course, Judge Spero stated, "The Court now reaches a different conclusion and finds that the classes have been narrowed sufficiently that any individualized issues that arise in connection with the representative evidence offered by Plaintiffs will not predominate over common issues." In its previous decision, the court took issue with the plaintiffs including winter conditioning activities as part of the class definition. The court found that players are given wide latitude in their winter conditioning workouts, giving rise to too many individualized issues. By excluding these winter activities under the new class definition, the focus is on team activities and conditioning, rather than individualized winter programs of each player. The court also relied on the fact that "many of the individualized inquiries cited by Defendants go to damages and not liability, and therefore do not present an impediment to class certification." The court ordered the parties to file a proposed schedule of the case by April 28, 2017. Ultimately, MLB may be forced to take this issue to trial. NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Rienzo" Stock Suit Over 2016, 2017 IPO ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DI RIENZO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK SOON- SHIONG, and PAUL A. HOLT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01912 (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, issued false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, in connection with the Company's initial public offering on June 2, 2016; and/or (2) in the open market between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017. Specifically, that (i) Defendant Soon-Shiong funneled business to NantHealth through his donation to the University of Utah, pursuant to the contractual terms of which the university was effectively required to spend $10 million on genetics analysis performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, the number of test orders that NantHealth reported to investors was artificially inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong's donation to the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as a result, NantHealth's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. NantHealth, Inc. is a transformational healthcare cloud-based IT company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com E-mail: hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 1-800-977-7401 Fax: 1-800-536-0065 E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com sherin@goldberglawpc.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Okays $208MM GIA Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- On March 21, 2017, a California federal judge granted preliminary approval of a $208 million settlement in a lawsuit filed by student-athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) alleging that it violated national laws in unlawfully capping the value of athletic scholarships or Grants- in-Aid (GIAs), according to Hagens Berman. Under the court's preliminary approval of the settlement, Hagens Berman can begin mailing notice to class members starting late July 2017. "For years, we've fought on behalf of tens of thousands of student-athletes who simply haven't been given a fair shake," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing the class of student-athletes. "We're grateful to the court for preliminarily approving this monumental settlement that will bring real change to the way the NCAA treats Division 1 players, and grateful to the players themselves for stepping up to the plate." Who's Affected? The settlement affects approximately 40,000 Division I collegiate athletes who played men's or women's basketball, or FBS football between Mar. 5, 2010 and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement, and who received from an NCAA member institution for at least one academic term (such as a semester or quarter) (1) a full athletics GIA required by NCAA rules to be set at a level below the cost of attendance, and/or (2) an otherwise full athletics GIA. How Much Will Student-Athletes Receive? The monumental settlement was recently reached between the NCAA and approximately 40,000 Division 1 student-athletes and will bring an estimated average amount of $6,500 to each eligible class member who played his or her sport for four years, pending final approval of the settlement. What do Student-Athletes Need to do? Under the settlement preliminarily approved on March 21 by Judge Claudia A. Wilken, each student-athlete will be directly notified and eligible class members will have a check mailed to him or her, with no claim form required and no right of any reversion of funds to defendants. The case, originally filed in 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is a first-of-its- kind antitrust class action. The suit alleges that the NCAA and five power conferences have systematically colluded to disrupt the free market and deprive NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football players and Division 1 men's and women's basketball players of the full economic benefits of their labor. The lawsuit argues that without this antitrust collusion, NCAA member schools would gladly compete for student-athletes' attendance and talent by at least providing the full cost of attendance. The same court previously certified a class in In re NCAA Student- Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation (later titled, O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association), a case also brought by Hagens Berman. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. NATIONAL DEBT: Faces "Clayton" TCPA Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------ Laurence Clayton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Debt Relief LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00262 (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2017) seeks payment of damages resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint says Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. During all relevant time, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. National Debt Relief is one of the country's debt settlement companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: American Trucking Appeals Order to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs American Trucking Associations, Inc., Lightning Express Delivery Service Inc., Wadhams Enterprises, Inc. and Ward Transport & Logistics Corp. filed an appeal from a District Court judgment dated February 28, 2017, relating to the lawsuit titled American Trucking Associations v. New York State Thruway Authority, Case No. 13-cv-8123, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, American Trucking, which bills itself as the largest trucking industry trade association, alleges that Thruway Authority overcharged truckers for tolls for years, and diverted $1.1 billion of the money to maintain the state's canal system for tourists. American Trucking contends that the Thruway Authority violated its members' rights by spending the $1.1 billion on the Canal System since taking over its management in 1992. The appellate case is captioned as American Trucking Associations v. New York State Thruway Authority, Case No. 17-737, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants American Trucking Associations, Inc., Wadhams Enterprises, Inc., Lightning Express Delivery Service Inc. and Ward Transport & Logistics Corp., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Evan Mark Tager, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3240 Facsimile: (202) 263-5240 E-mail: etager@mayerbrown.com Defendants-Appellees New York State Thruway Authority; New York State Canal Corporation; Thomas J. Madison, Jr., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority; Howard Milstein, in his official capacity as Chair of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; Donna J. Luh, in her official capacity as Vice-Chair of New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; E. Virgil Conway, in their official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; Richard N. Simberg, in their official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; Brandon R. Sall, in their official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. Rice Donald, Jr., in their official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; and Jose Holguin-Veras, in their official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors, are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 416-8020 E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: "Coleman" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- DEWAYNE COLEMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00013-CEJ (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to, inter alia: (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40 hours in a work week as required by law; and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides technology resources. Plaintiff was a "Quality Assurance Technician" and performed related activities for Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (913) 661-2900 Fax: (913) 312-5841 E-mail: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Phone: (404) 965-8811 Fax: (404) 496-7405 Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com OPHTHOTECH CORP: "Wasson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK WASSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01758 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2017), alleges that each of the Individual Defendants are liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Ophthotech's securities by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The alleged scheme includes (i) deceiving the investing public regarding Ophthotech's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its securities and (ii) causing Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Ophthotech securities at artificially inflated prices. Ophthotech Corp. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company specializing in the development of novel therapeutics to treat back of the eye diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. Meghan Daley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 992-4523 Fax: (212) 363-7171 OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: S.D.N.Y. Tosses Amended "Vaccaro" Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the amended complaint filed in the lawsuit initiated by Enrico Vaccaro, Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Enrico Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of purchasers of New Source Energy Partners, L.P. ("NSLP") 11% Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units ("NSLP Complaint"). Plaintiff named as defendants NSLP, as well as certain officers and directors of NSLP, and underwriters Oppenheimer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, and Wunderlich Securities, Inc. Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act pursuant to and/or traceable to NSLP's prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus, filed with the SEC on May 7, 2015, and the base prospectus and shelf registration statement filed with the SEC and declared effective on April 21, 2014 ("NSLP Offering Documents"). The NSLP Complaint alleged that the NSLP Offering Documents failed to disclose certain cash flow problems facing NSLP and sought damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On or around November 13, 2015, the defendants removed the state court action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). On or around March 30, 2016, NSLP filed with the SDNY notice of its March 15, 2016 voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7 title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which operates as an automatic stay of the claims as to NSLP. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint ("NSLP Amended Complaint"), which seeks unspecified damages, including interest, punitive and exemplary damages, as well as rescission. On December 19, 2016, the SDNY dismissed the NSLP Amended Complaint without prejudice. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., through its Operating Subsidiaries, is a leading middle-market investment bank and full service broker- dealer. With roots tracing back to 1881, the Company is engaged in a broad range of activities in the financial services industry, including retail securities brokerage, institutional sales and trading, investment banking (both corporate and public finance), research, market-making, trust services and investment advisory and asset management services. The Company owns, directly or through subsidiaries, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., a New York-based securities broker-dealer, Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc., a New York-based investment adviser, Freedom Investments, Inc., a discount securities broker-dealer based in New Jersey, Oppenheimer Trust Company, a Delaware limited purpose bank, OPY Credit Corp., a New York corporation organized to trade and clear syndicated corporate loans, and Oppenheimer Multifamily Housing & Healthcare Finance, Inc., a Federal Housing Administration ("FHA")-approved mortgage company based in Pennsylvania. OSF HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Appointment of Interim Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sara Darrow of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, denied plaintiffs' motion for an order designating interim class counsel in the case styled BONNIE BAILEY, PEGGY WISE, and JUNE SCHWIERJOHN, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, THE SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE SAINT ANTHONY'S HEALTH CENTER RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01137-SLD-TSH (C.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Bonnie Bailey and Peggy Wise filed a lawsuit on May 3, 2016, alleging that defendant OSF HealthCare System maintains a retirement savings plan for the benefit of its employees, but that the plan is underfunded by at least $350 million. They alleged that this was so because, while OSF claims that the plan falls within the church plan exemption to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461, the plan does not fall within the exemption and must be funded at the level ordinarily required by ERISA. Both plaintiffs were or had been employees at OSF's Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Illinois. They purported to sue on behalf of themselves and all participants in and beneficiaries of The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis Employees Retirement Savings Plan. Six days before Bailey and Wise filed the suit in the Central District, prospective intervenor Sheilar Smith, a former employee of Saint Anthony's, filed a similar lawsuit in the Southern District alleging much the same thing as to all OSF retirement plans that OSF is justifying underfunding its retirement plan by treating it as a church plan exempt from the requirements of ERISA. Smith purported to sue on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of defined benefit pension plans that are established, maintained, administered, and/or sponsored by OSF, OSF's affiliates, or other OSF committees. OSF, a named defendant in both cases and represented by the same counsel in both, moved on June 13, 2016 in the Southern District to transfer Smith to the Central District, to which the judge denied. Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order designating their present counsel, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Izard Kindall and Raabe LLP, and the Janssen Law Center, as interim lead class counsel pending a motion for class certification, and also a motion to file a notice of supplemental information. Intervenors Kasandra Anton and Sheilar Smith filed a motion to intervene and transfer their case to the Southern District of Illinois on August 9, 2016. Intervenors also filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the responses thereto. Defendants filed a motion for a hearing on the motions to intervene and transfer, and Plaintiffs' motion to file a notice of supplemental information. Judge Darrow held that until and unless other parties seek to join the case before the class certification phase, there is no need to appoint interim counsel, whether or not the Rule 23(g) factors are satisfied. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for an order designating interim class counsel is denied without prejudice. Proposed intervenors Kasandra Anton and Sheilar Smith's motion to intervene is granted, their motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Illinois is denied and their motion for leave to file a reply to the responses thereto is granted. Defendants' motion for a hearing on the motions to intervene and transfer is denied and plaintiffs' motion to file a notice of supplemental information is granted. A copy of Judge Darrow's order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/UjKZHC from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick S. O'Shaughnessy -- at JANSSEN LAW CENTER; Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Douglas P. Needham -- dneedham@ikrlaw.com -- Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- at IZARD KINDALL RAABE LLP; Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie E. Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- at KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP OSF Healthcare System, Defendant, represented by Erin E. McAdams - - erin.mcadams@morganlewis.com -- Brian T. Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Jeremy P. Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Roberta H. Vespremi -- roberta.vespremi@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP John Does 1-20, The Saint Anthony's Health Center Retirement Committee, and The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis Employees Pension Plan Administrative Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian T. Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Kasandra Anton and Sheilar Smith, Intervenors, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong -- at ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC PEOPLES TRUST: Court Allows Appeal from Class Certification Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Maniago, Esq. -- MManiago@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in Jiang v. Peoples Trust Company, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a class certification order and remitted the matter for further consideration by the chambers judge. The defendants are all issuers of general use prepaid cards, branded as VISA, American Express or MasterCard. All defendants charged various fees in relation to the purchase and use of the prepaid cards. The cards were acquired by purchasers for a variety of reasons, including for reasons other than personal use. Ms. Jiang purchased a prepaid card for personal use, and alleged that the prepaid cards infringe the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("BPCPA"). At certification, the chambers judge came to a final conclusion about whether the prepaid cards at issue were "prepaid purchase cards" within the meaning of the BPCPA, which, based on this analysis, led him to conclude there was a reasonable cause of action. On the issue of identifiable class, he concluded that it was impossible to define the class with reference to objective criteria. Despite that finding, the chambers judge went on to certify 5 common issues, while rejecting others. On appeal, the plaintiff Ms. Jiang and the defendants each raised issues with the chamber judge's reasoning. Three issues drove the result in the appeal. 1. The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge properly determined that the plaintiff's claim was not bound to fail, but erred when he actually decided the merits of the issue of whether the prepaid cards were "prepaid purchase cards" within the meaning of the BPCPA. Final determinations of such issues, which would have resulted in the plaintiff being bound to "succeed" in that element of her cause of action, should have been left to the common issues trial. The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge erred in finding the class definition to be deficient. In doing so, the Court rejected the "objective standards" analysis articulated by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Ileman v. Rogers Communications. The Court noted that the appeals in Ileman did not require the appellate courts to comment on this issue. The Court commented: "it cannot be the case that a definition incorporating any subjective element denies the plaintiff resort to the [Class Proceedings Act] by virtue of failing the s. 4(1)(b) requirement. To hold otherwise would be to essentially rule that class actions under the BPCPA are impossible because the definition of "consumer transaction" will always incorporate a subjective inquiry: did this person purchase the good or service for a primarily personal, family or household purpose?" The Court held that it was an error to conflate the identifiable class requirement with the consideration of managing individual issues (which should appropriately be dealt with at the preferable procedure stage of the analysis (s. 4(1)(d)). 2. The Court concluded that the chambers judge did not properly consider the s. 4(1)(d) analysis (given his error in conflating the identifiable class and preferable procedure requirements) and failed at all to address the requirements under s. 4(1)(e), relating to the proposed representative plaintiff. 3. The Court held it appropriate to remit the certification application back to the lower court to reconsider its s. 4(1)(d) analysis and perform a s. 4(1)(e) analysis. PFIZER INC: United Food Fund, Others Appeal Ruling to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00395-AWA-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of antitrust laws. The appellate case is captioned as United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 17-1333, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Justin Boley, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. Kenneth Alan Wexler, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE, LLP 55 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com KAE@wexlerwallace.com kaw@wexlerwallace.com - and - Joshua Seth Devore, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005-3965 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jdevore@cohenmilstein.com - and - J. Douglas Richards, Esq. Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 88 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com srobertson@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael A. Rose, Esq. Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 E-mail: mr@hachroselaw.com fs@hachrose.com Plaintiffs-Appellants UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND; WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND AND IRONWORKERS LOCAL 383 HEALTHCARE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND; A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL #6 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND are represented by: Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq. Barrett Erskine Pope, Esq. DURRETTECRUMP PLC 1111 East Main Street P. O. Box 1463 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-6809 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 E-mail: wdurrette@durrettecrump.com bpope@durrettecrump.com Plaintiffs-Appellants UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND AND IRONWORKERS LOCAL 383 HEALTHCARE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND are represented by: J. Buckley Warden, IV, Esq. DURRETTECRUMP PLC 1111 East Main Street P. O. Box 1463 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 916-6597 E-mail: Bwarden@Durrettecrump.com Plaintiff-Appellant WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND AND IRONWORKERS LOCAL 383 HEALTHCARE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Elvin Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. Sarah J. Payne, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com Plaintiff-Appellant AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND is represented by: Jeffrey Louis Kodroff, Esq. John Angelo Macoretta, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com jmacoretta@srkw-law.com Plaintiff-Appellant INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND is represented by: Heidi M. Drewes-Silton, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com kriebekh@locklaw.com Plaintiff-Appellant A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN is represented by: Michael M. Buchman, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 577-0040 Facsimile: (212) 577-0054 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com - and - Donald A. Migliori, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLP 55 Cedar Street Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 457-7700 E-mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLP 20 Church Street Hartford, CT 06103-0000 Telephone: (860) 882-1676 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com - and - Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq. DIMUROGINSBERG, PC 1101 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314-2956 Telephone: (703) 684-4333 Facsimile: (703) 548-3181 E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com Plaintiff-Appellant INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL #6 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND is represented by: Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq. Matthew Joseph Perez, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Susan Rebecca Podolsky, Esq. 1800 Diagonal Road Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (571) 366-1702 Facsimile: (703) 647-6009 E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com Defendants-Appellees PFIZER, INCORPORATED, G.D. SEARLE LLC, and PFIZER ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. are represented by: Jaime Manuel Crowe, Esq. WHITE & CASE, LLP 701 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-0000 Telephone: (202) 626-3640 Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 E-mail: jcrowe@whitecase.com - and - Dimitrios Drivas, Esq. Adam Robert Gahtan, Esq. Raj Gandesha, Esq. Bryan Gant, Esq. Sheryn George, Esq. Ryan Johnson, Esq. Robert Alexander Milne, Esq. Jayashree Mitra, Esq. John Padro, Esq. Amit Thakore, Esq. Brendan G. Woodward, Esq. WHITE & CASE, LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-0000 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: ddrivas@whitecase.com agahtan@whitecase.com rgandesha@whitecase.com bgant@whitecase.com sheryn.george@whitecase.com rjohnson@whitecase.com rmilne@whitecase.com jmitra@whitecase.com jpadro@whitecase.com athakore@whitecase.com bwoodard@whitecase.com - and - Stephen Edward Noona, Esq. Lauren Tallent Rogers, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC 150 West Main Street P. O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514-3037 Telephone: (757) 624-3239 Facsimile: (757) 624-3169 E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com ltrogers@kaufcan.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Law -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GUERRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00488 (N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio wage-and-hour statute. Defendant is an insurance company licensed to do business and issue insurance policies in the State of Ohio. Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case, and the members of the Ohio Class, are current or former hourly employees of Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Michaela Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: 330-470-4429 Fax: 330-754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Anonymous Plaintiff Lacks Standing ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 8992 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.) Quest Diagnostics, Inc. is a company providing diagnostic medical testing and possessed a facsimile number similar to that of APS, a Brooklyn-based marketing agency. Only their area codes differed. For at least a year, APS has received thousands of medical forms from medical facilities and providers containing private medical information intended for Quest. APS employees have contacted medical providers, including Counseling Services of New York, LLC (CSNY), Dr. Ferdinand B. Banez, and Quest about such misdirected faxes, but they continued to receive them. In August 2015, anonymous plaintiff Jane Doe began treatment at CSNY, which included clinical tests such as urine testing. On October 14, 2015, Banez signed a document containing plaintiff's personal information and medical data. On October 15, 2015, CSNY and Banez faxed the document to APS, although the directions on the form stated that it should be faxed or mailed to Quest. Anonymous plaintiff Jane Doe filed a purported class action against Quest, CSNY, and Dr. Banez, on November 16, 2015, alleging state law claims of negligence, violation of New York General Business Law Section 349, and fraud, for the faxing of medical information to the wrong fax number. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, damages, court costs and attorneys' fees based on this misdirected fax. Defendants CSNY and Banez answered the complaint but did not assert any counterclaims. Defendant Quest, in lieu of an answer, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, but the day before Quest filed its reply, plaintiff filed a letter seeking voluntary dismissal of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and stating her intention to refile in state court. Plaintiff's resulting letter stated that plaintiff was willing to withdraw her opposition to Quest's Rule 12(b)(1) motion, but with an additional condition that she would not waive any rights or concede Quest's arguments as to whether plaintiff had met her burden for Article III standing. Quest argued that the two types of dismissal were not equivalent, and that plaintiff should not be able to avoid a final, jurisdictional dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and assessment of fees by obtaining a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). With the parties disagreeing about the proper form of dismissal, an opinion and order was issued in June 2016 granting dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), and inviting defendants to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants did so in July 2016, and plaintiff opposed, the motion on the grounds that an award of fees was not appropriate under Rule 41(a)(2) and she did not seek reconsideration of the court's June 2016 Opinion. In October 2016, plaintiff was given the choice to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice and pay Quest $32,342.90 and CSNY and Banez $675.00 in fees, or to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the October 2016 order, arguing that she never formally moved to voluntarily dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2). Plaintiff's motion failed to meet the standard for reconsideration, and the motion was denied in January 2017. In January 2017, plaintiff filed a letter stating that she would not pay defendants' fees. Judge Schofield vacates its prior orders to grant plaintiff voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and award fees sua sponte. Reconsideration is warranted here where plaintiff stated that she never made a Rule 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary dismissal. The court construes plaintiff's claim that she never made a motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) as a request to withdraw her motion. Accordingly, the action returns to litigation. Before the court is a fully briefed motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Judge Schofield held that plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations of injury. Plaintiff's only statements of harm are conclusory not factual statements, which are insufficient to constitute a concrete, real, and not abstract injury. As the complaint fails to allege any harm to plaintiff that is concrete, actual or imminent, or fairly traceable to Quest, plaintiff's claims against Quest are dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Judge Schofield vacated the orders dated June 29, 2016 and October 3, 2016, and granted Quest's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Schofield's memorandum opinion and order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/uJWsQt from Leagle.com. Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Michael Norton -- JNorton@nfllp.com -- at Newman Ferrara LLP Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eamon Paul Joyce -- ejoyce@sidley.com -- Daniel C. Craig -- dcraig@sidley.com -- David H. Hoffman -- david.hoffman@sidley.com -- Geeta Malhotra -- gmalhotra@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP Counseling Services of New York, LLC and Dr. Ferdinand B. Banez, Defendants, represented by: Amy S. Weissman, Esq. Jeffrey Alan Marshall, Esq. Lauren Rachel Turkel, Esq. MARSHALL, CONWAY, & WRIGHT, P.C. 45 Broadway, Suite 740 New York, NY 10006 Tel: 212-619-4444 Fax: 212-962-2647 REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Underway in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Regulus Therapeutics Inc. is defending a securities class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ("District Court") against us, our Chief Executive Officer, Paul C. Grint, and our Chief Operating Officer, Joseph P. Hagan. The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain purchasers of our securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or response." The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing first-in-class drugs that target microRNAs to treat a broad range of diseases. The Company was formed in 2007 when Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. contributed significant intellectual property, know-how and financial and human capital to pursue the development of drugs targeting microRNAs pursuant to a license and collaboration agreement. REVLON INC: Second Consolidated Amended Class Complaint Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs challenging the Elizabeth Arden Merger have filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint, according to Revlon, Inc.'s March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein, on July 25, 2016, a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE- 16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders with respect to the Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board. The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker case. By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on August 11, 2016 a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel advised that post consummation of the Merger they were going to file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for relief set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints. The Company believes the allegations contained in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future. The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal proceedings in the aggregate is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company's operating results for a particular period depending on, among other things, the size of the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of the Company's income for that particular period. Revlon, Inc., conducts its business exclusively through its direct wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Revlon Consumer Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. Revlon is an indirect majority- owned subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated, a corporation wholly-owned by Ronald O. Perelman. The Company was founded over 85 years ago by Charles Revson, who revolutionized the cosmetics industry by introducing nail enamels matched to lipsticks in fashion colors. RICHARD CATENA: Faces Class Action Over Fake Warranties ------------------------------------------------------- Sara Jerde, writing for NJ.com, reports that a prominent used car dealership tricked its customers into paying thousands of dollars for fake warranties, a class action lawsuit filed earlier this month alleges. Richard Catena Auto Wholesalers Inc. employees allegedly duped customers into buying warranties that did not exist and kept the money, according to the complaint filed by Susan Chana Lask, the attorney representing the clients who brought the suit. The suit alleges that the insurance for the warranties was not properly funded and that the dealership didn't respond to customers who were unable to get their cars fixed under the invalid warranties. The warranties were sold since 2010, the suit alleges. In 2015, Gregg Frankel, of Lebanon, bought a 2011 Mercedes-Benz for more than $70,000 from the dealership, along with a $3,000 "Platinum Plan" from Applied Protection Systems, LLC., the suit alleges. His contract stated that he would be covered for four years or 50,000 miles, depending on which came first, it says. But when Mr. Frankel's car needed fixing about a year later, technicians discovered his warranty under Applied Protection Systems didn't have a phone number, website or email address. William Bruner, who lives in Weston, Connecticut, claimed a similar experience in the suit. In 2014, he purchased a Mercedes S65 AMG for more than $85,000 and a "Platinum Plan" warranty for $4,000. The contract was for four years or 48,000 miles, he alleged. More than two years into the warranty, Bruner says he realized the warranty didn't exist and he began trying to get into contact with the dealership. His requests were ignored, the suit alleges. Applied Protection Systems, LLC, which offered invalid warranties, was not backed by an insurance company and did not have the funds to offer protection, the suit alleges. Richard Catena Auto Wholesalers Inc. is based out of Teterboro and sells and leases a variety of luxury cars, including vehicles from BMW, Lexus and Audi. A request for comment from the dealer was not returned. The lawsuit was filed in federal court and seeks more than $5 million. SAKS FIFTH: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Payton" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Payton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, Case No. BC653923 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of sending text messages to the Class using an automatic dialing system to any telephone number assigned to a cellular phone service. Headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, Saks Fifth Avenue LLC operates a luxury department store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Hansen" Suit Over Washing Machines -------------------------------------------------------------- CATHLEEN HANSEN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-352 (E.D. Wis., March 9, 2017), seeks relief in the form of: (1) an injunction against Defendants from any further sales of the recalled washing machines (model number WA456DRHDWR/AA) and to take such other remedial action as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2) money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "West" Class Suit v. Unit Underway in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Energy, Inc., is defending a subsidiary against a putative class action lawsuit filed by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson in Oklahoma, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their complaint, plaintiffs assert various tort claims seeking relief for damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for injury to property and for the purchase of insurance policies allegedly needed by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of wastewater disposal wells. The Company says an estimate of reasonably probable losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company had not established any reserves relating to this action. SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States. The Company's principal executive offices are located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. SANOFI: 1,019 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016, around 1,019 lawsuits, involving approximately 5,366 claimants (but 4,393 ingesting plaintiffs) have been filed against affiliates of Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb seeking recovery under U.S. state law for personal injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use of Plavix(R). The actions are held in several jurisdictions, including the federal and/or state courts of New Jersey, New York, California, and Delaware. The Company says it is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on the Company. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: 791 Taxotere(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016, around 791 lawsuits, involving approximately 944 claimants (but 868 ingesting plaintiffs) have been filed against affiliates of Sanofi under U.S. state law for personal injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use of Taxotere(R). The actions are held in several jurisdictions, including the federal and/or state courts of Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, California, and Delaware. The Company says it is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on the Company. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: Faces 2 Suits in New Jersey Alleging RICO Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi is facing two putative class action lawsuits in New Jersey alleging violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Company said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In February 2017, two actions were filed against Sanofi US in Federal Court in New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of diabetes patients alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Sherman Act and various state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes in connection with the pricing of Lantus(R) Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: Faces Claims and Suit in France Over Use of Depakine(R) --------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi is facing claims and a potential class action lawsuit in France over use of Depakine(R) product, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. As of January 25, 2017, 29 individual claims and a potential class action have been filed against a French affiliate of Sanofi seeking indemnification under French law for personal injuries allegedly sustained by children in connection with the use of Depakine(R), a sodium valproate antiepileptic treatment, by the mothers during pregnancy. These actions are held in several jurisdictions in France. An investigation is ongoing in relation to a criminal complaint against person unknown filed in May 2015. The French government has, through the 2017 Finance law adopted on December 29, 2016, set up a public fund which is meant to compensate loss or injury actually suffered in relation to the prescription of sodium valproate and its derivatives. The Company says it is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably the outcome of these cases or the potential financial impact on the Company. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: Faces Two Antitrust Class Action Suits in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi is facing two putative class action lawsuits in Massachusetts alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In December 2016 and January 2017, two putative class actions were filed against Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH in Federal Court in Massachusetts on behalf of direct-purchasers of Lantus(R) alleging certain antitrust violations. In January 2017, the Minnesota State Attorney General's office issued a civil investigative demand calling for the production of documents and information relating to pricing and trade practices for Lantus(R) and Toujeo(R), from January 1, 2008 through present. Sanofi US is cooperating with this investigation. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: Settles Menactra(R) Antitrust Class Suit for $61.5 Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi has settled for of $61.5 million the antitrust lawsuit initiated by direct purchasers of Menactra(R), according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In December 2011, a class action was filed in the New Jersey Federal District Court alleging that Sanofi Pasteur Inc. violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully monopolizing and restraining trade in the meningococcal market and seeking treble damages and other remedies for alleged anticompetitive overcharges. On August 6, 2012, the Court denied Sanofi Pasteur's motion to dismiss. In September 2015, the Court certified a class, which (subject to certain exclusions), consists of all persons or entities in the United States that purchased Menactra(R) directly from Sanofi Pasteur or its affiliates after March 1, 2010. In December 2016, the case was settled for an amount of $61.5 million. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: Says NY Shareholder Securities Class Action Now Over ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanofi disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the litigation of the consolidated shareholder securities lawsuit in New York is now over. In December 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sanofi American Depositary Shares. The complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleged that Sanofi's public disclosures failed to disclose that Sanofi (i) was making improper payments to healthcare professionals in violation of federal law and (ii) lacked internal controls over financial reporting, which allegedly inflated the price of its securities. In February 2015, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York, alleging the same misconduct, but asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In March 2015, the cases were consolidated, and in May 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming Sanofi and its former CEO as defendants and asserting claims under the Exchange Act. In August 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and in January 2016, the Court granted that motion. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 2016 dismissal order and for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint. On June 24, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint. On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of (i) the District Court's January 2016 decision granting defendants' motion to dismiss and (ii) the District Court's June 2016 decision denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and leave to amend. On November 4, 2016, plaintiffs moved for a voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice. On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted plaintiffs' motion. The case is over. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANOFI: CVR Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. Now Over -------------------------------------------------------- The litigation in the U.S. CVR Securities Class Action is now over, Sanofi said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In December 2013, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of holders of contingent value rights ("CVRs") issued in connection with Sanofi's acquisition of Genzyme in 2011. The complaints, which named Sanofi and certain of its officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act, alleged that Sanofi's public disclosures materially misrepresented (i) the efficacy and safety of Lemtrada(R) (alemtuzumab) and (ii) the design of two Lemtrada(R) clinical trials, CARE-MS I and CARE-MS II. Such alleged misrepresentations, according to the complaints, caused an artificial inflation in the price of the CVRs. In March 2014, the cases were consolidated. Also in March 2014, an additional group of 32 purported CVR holders filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Sanofi, Genzyme and certain of their officers (the "AG Funds Action"), asserting claims under the Exchange Act, the Securities Act and California, Massachusetts and Minnesota state law, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Lemtrada(R), its development and likelihood of success before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In April 2014, the plaintiff in the consolidated putative class action (the "Consolidated Action") filed an amended shareholder class action complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act. In June 2014, the defendants in the Consolidated and AG Funds Actions filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, and on January 28, 2015, the Court granted that motion. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 4, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court in both actions. The case is over. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. SANTA ROSA, CA: Faces "Aboudara" Suit Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Aboudara, Jr., et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Rosa, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01661 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs are employed as firefighters by the City of Santa Rosa. According to the complaint, Defendant failed to include all requisite forms of compensation in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime compensation, and failed to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all overtime hours as required by the FLSA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Steven, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. Mastagni Holstedt, APC 1912 I Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Tel: (916) 446-4692 Fax: (916) 447-4614 SHENZEN SUNSHINE: Faces Class Suit over Defective Hobby Drones -------------------------------------------------------------- Don Debenedectis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a camera-equipped hobby drone called the Onagofly F115 is so poorly made it's "nothing more than a spruced-up paperweight," buyers claim in a federal class action in Los Angeles alleging fraud and false advertising. Allan Black and three other named plaintiffs say Shenzen Sunshine Technology Development, of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, and Acumen Robot Intelligence of Brea, California "have perpetrated a scam upon the fast-growing drone-buying community by duping consumers into purchasing Onagofly F115s" because the little quadcopters "lack various specifications as advertised." The final defendant is Sam Tsu, of Beverly Hills, dba Onagofly. The market for drones is expanding quickly. PricewaterhouseCoopers reported in May 2016 that the market for commercial drones could reach $127 billion by 2020, up from just $2 billion. The market for much smaller hobby drones is also growing, and growing crowded -- but not without some failures. The British company that makes the palm-sized Zano drone lost œ2 million and went into voluntary liquidation in November. Based on allegations in the new class action, Onagofly could be next. Black claims that the Onagofly drone is unstable in the air and "fails to orient itself or follow the user as promised" in advertising because its GPS application is flawed. The battery and the camera are significantly underpowered compared to the company's advertising claims, "and the propellers are of poor quality and break easily," according to the 32-page complaint. Nor is the camera on the drone a 15 megapixel Sony, as advertised, Black says. "Instead, the camera in the drone is of a significantly lower resolution than promised. In fact, the video that Onagofly touts on its website http://www.onagofly.comas having been shot with an Onagofly drone was in fact not filmed by an Onagofly drone, and instead was filmed by a different drone equipped with a higher resolution camera than the Onagofly drone," according to the complaint. Nor does the company respond to customer complaints: "In fact, defendants' customer service department is nonexistent, such that it is completely unresponsive to the hundreds if not thousands of customer complaints regarding the Onagofly drone," the complaint states. The lawsuit claims that Acumen and Onagofly are Tsu's alter egos. "Mr. Tsu personally directed and participated in the fraudulent activity described in this complaint, knowingly using a set of revolving corporations (of which he was the principal shareholder) to carry out his willful and deliberate fraudulent activity with one purpose in mind: avoiding personal liability," the complaint states. The public information office of Onagofly did not respond to an email inquiry. A person who answered the phone at Onagofly's Brea headquarters said he was not authorized to talk. The plaintiffs, from California, Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, are represented by Kenneth Grunfeld with Golomb & Honik in Philadelphia and Kirk Wolden with Carter Wolden Curtis in Sacramento. Wolden referred questions to Grunfeld, who could not be reached on March 28. Onagofly makes "micro" or "nano" drones, about 5 inches square, that are controlled by a user's smartphone, turning and rolling as the user moves the phone. The company appears to have put out a number of versions of its drones over the past few years. The F115 is no longer listed on the company website nor on the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, where it markets its products. All four named plaintiffs paid for their drones "by making a 'contribution' payment through the www.indiegogo.com website, but the purchase was made from the defendants for the plaintiff to receive an Onagofly F115 drone as promised by the defendants," the lawsuit states. Two paid $199 and two paid $259. Onagofly had raised $3.5 million through crowdfunding as of February 2016, according to its Indiegogo page. Named plaintiffs Robert Matos Rivera and Roger Watts say they never received the drones they ordered, despite waiting, and complaining, for months. Black and Christopher Jones say they did receive their F115s., but Jones's drone "was unable to perform the basic function of flying at consistent speeds," and "the video capabilities of the drone were grossly misrepresented." Black says his drone lacked the promised GPS lock and obstacle- avoidance feature, so that "the drone frequently flies away and crashes." They seek class certification, restitution and punitive damages for breach of contract, fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and violations of California, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota laws. SHILOH INDUSTRIES: New York Judge Dismisss Shareholders' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned RAYMOND THOMAS and WILLIAM PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC., RAMZI HERMIZ, and THOMAS M. DUGAN, Defendants, No. 15-cv-7449 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.). Defendant Shiloh Industries Inc, incorporated in Delaware with its principal offices located in Ohio, is a supplier of lightweighting equipment to various automotive and commercial vehicle industries. Shiloh also provides noise, vibration, and harshness solutions to manufacturers. Shiloh maintains twenty-one manufacturing facilities, and is headquartered in Valley City, Ohio. Shiloh's securities are actively traded on the NASDAQ Global Market. Lead plaintiff Raymond Thomas and plaintiff William Porter brought a putative class action against Shiloh Industries and two of its individual directors, Ramzi Hermiz and Thomas M. Dugan. Hermiz has been President and CEO of Shiloh since 2012, while Dugan was Vice President of Finance and Treasurer at all relevant times. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege that defendants perpetrated an accounting fraud at Shiloh's manufacturing facility in Wellington, Ohio. Plaintiffs contend that as a result, the fraudulent accounting artificially inflated Shiloh's net income. They claim that defendants effected the alleged fraud by allowing misallocated steel surcharges on the balance sheet to remain uncorrected, which had the effect of understating the cost of goods sold and inflating inventory. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants touted their financial success to investors for the first and second quarters of 2015, but that on September 9, 2015, Shiloh revealed that it was conducting an internal investigation into the accounting at its Wellington facility. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for the injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' alleged wrongdoing. Defendants moved to dismiss the corrected amended complaint under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Judge Wood granted defendants' motion to dismiss as plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead an underlying violation under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Judge Wood dismisses the plaintiffs' claim for liability under Section 20(a). A copy of Judge Wood's opinion and order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/mCsYI0 from Leagle.com. Raymond Thomas, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.; Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Charles H. Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; Sara Esther Fuks -- at Milberg LLP William Porter, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay - - RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Charles H. Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Defendants, represented by Geoffrey J. Ritts -- gjritts@jonesday.com -- Robert C. Micheletto -- rmicheletto@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day SPARK ENERGY: April 17 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in "Melville" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Melville V. Spark Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-08706 (D.N.J.), the Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint And/Or Motion to Strike on March 15, 2017. A hearing on the request is set for April 17 before Judge Robert B. Kugler. Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on March 10 entered an order granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Plaintiffs' request for nationwide class discovery. Judge Schneider's ruling provides that, "this Order is entered without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to request additional "nationwide" discovery after Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is decided. ORDERED that Defendant's request for Plaintiff's Social Security and Driver's License is DENIED. ORDERED that Defendant's request for Plaintiff's fee agreement is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED that the 5/16/2017 Status and Discovery Conference will proceed, and Discovery dispute letters shall be served by 5/12/2017." According to Spark Energy, Inc.'s March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, John Melville et al. v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016, Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. On November 15, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC's Motion to Dismiss in Part and dismissed Plaintiff's breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim as well as Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. On February 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint to try to expand the class to a nation-wide class. The response to this Amended Complaint for Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC was due on March 15, 2017. Initial discovery has begun. The Company says it cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case. Spark Energy, Inc., is a growing independent retail energy services company first founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. The Company purchases its natural gas and electricity supply from a variety of wholesale providers and bill its customers monthly for the delivery of natural gas and electricity based on their consumption at either a fixed or variable price. SPARK ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Veilleux" Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Veilleux et al v. Electricity Maine LLC et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00571 (D. Maine), ask the Court to schedule oral argument on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Spark Holdco LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on Feb. 6. Spark Holdco filed the Motion for Oral Argument on March 13. Responses to the Motion for Oral Argument are due April 3. On Feb. 27, Plaintiffs Jennifer Chon and Katherine Veilleux filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On March 26, they filed a Joinder to the Motion for Oral Argument. The case is before Judge Nancy Torresen and referred by John H Rich III. Spark Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark Holdco, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark Holdco, LLC in 2016, enrolled customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising and promotions. Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all Defendants: violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees. Defendants' initial responsive pleading was filed on February 6, 2017. In early February, Spark HoldCo filed a motion to dismiss the claims for which a hearing is expected in the second quarter. Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter but the Company anticipates it will commence soon. The Company said: "We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case. Under the terms of the acquisition, we are indemnified for losses and expenses in connection with this action subject to certain limits." Spark Energy, Inc., is a growing independent retail energy services company first founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. The Company purchases its natural gas and electricity supply from a variety of wholesale providers and bill its customers monthly for the delivery of natural gas and electricity based on their consumption at either a fixed or variable price. SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Securities Class Suit in N.D. Indiana Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Supreme Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in Indiana, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, Mark Weber (the Company's Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W. Long (the Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendants. Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. Supreme Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the nation's leading manufacturers of specialized commercial vehicles including truck bodies and specialty vehicles. The Company was originally incorporated in 1979. In January 1984, Supreme Corporation, the Company's wholly-owned operating subsidiary, was formed to acquire a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and repairing specialized truck bodies and related equipment. TAILORED BRANDS: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in "Makhlouf" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted Strathclyde Pension Fund's motion for appointment of the Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approval of the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, as lead counsel and Edison McDowell & Hetherington LLP as local counsel in the case styled PETER MAKHLOUF, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TAILORED BRANDS, INC. and DOUGLAS S. EWERT, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-16-0838, (S.D. Tex.). Tailored Brands, Inc. (TLRD) made a contentious acquisition on one-time rival Joseph A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (JOS) and optimistic, but allegedly made a misleading statements made during it. Ultimately TLRD purchased JOS, which was subsequently determined to be a deeply troubled company, at an excessive price, with the integration not proceeding as materially misrepresented to TLRD shareholders and with adverse facts not disclosed to them between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015. TLRD's stock became artificially inflated, class members purchased it at highly inflated prices, and they suffered economic loss when revelations of its actual financial situation reached the market. Before the court are the motion of Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (Jacksonville) and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System's (OPPRS', collectively, the Funds') motion for appointment of the Funds to serve as lead plaintiffs and for approval of Bernstein Liebhard, LLP as lead counsel, and of The Bilek Law Firm, LLP to serve as Liaison or local counsel, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Strathclyde Pension Fund's (the Pension Fund's) motion for appointment of the Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approval of the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP as lead counsel and Edison McDowell & Hetherington LLP as local counsel and The Pension Fund's motion to strike the sur-reply entitled Supplemental Submission, or, in the alternative, for leave to respond to the sur-reply. Judge Harmon concurs with the Pension Fund that it should be appointed lead plaintiff and its chosen attorneys, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP be appointed as lead counsel and Edison McDowell & Hetherington LLP as liaison counsel. It is clear that individually the Pension Fund has the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. Lead plaintiff has submitted evidence and case law showing that it is not subject to unique defenses that make it incapable of representing the class and that the Funds lack a pre-litigation relationship based on more than the losing investments at issue. Judge Harmon also agrees with the Pension Fund that the Funds Supplemental Submission is in the nature of a sur-reply. Because the Pension Fund has introduced new evidence in its Reply, because full briefing is fair and useful to the adjudication of the case, the court denies the Pension Fund's motion to strike, grants its alternative request for retroactive leave to file sur-reply, and considers the arguments it puts forth in its Supplemental Submission. Judge Harmon denied the Pension Fund's motion to strike the sur- reply but its alternative motion for leave to respond the sur- reply is granted. The Funds' motion for the appointment of the Funds to serve as Lead Plaintiffs and approval of their selected attorneys as lead counsel and liaison counsel is denied. The Pension Fund's motion for appointment of the Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approval of the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP as lead counsel and Edison McDowell & Hetherington LLP as local counsel is granted. A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/WDzoZI from Leagle.com. Peter Makhlouf, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP Defendants, represented by Anthony J. O'Malley -- ajomalley@vorys.com -- Monica Fitzgerald Oathout -- moathout@vorys.com -- Rajeev K. Adlakha -- rkadlakha@vorys.com -- at Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP The Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Movant, represented by Jeffrey W. Chambers -- at Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers LLP Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Benefit Assoc., Movant, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Stanley D. Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard; Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP Strathclyde Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Andrew J. Brown - - andrewb@rgrdlaw.com -- Helen J. Hodges -- helenh@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Andrew M. Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- at Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Order on Doshi & Garbowski Merging ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., awaits ruling on motion to consolidate the Doshi and Garbowski Actions, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 29, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, Jodie Pope Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO, entitled Garbowski, et al. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11963 ("Garbowski Action"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants and the Company's registration statement for its IPO made false and misleading statements and omissions about its clinical trials for galeterone, in violation of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its IPO as well as a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between September 17, 2014, and July 25, 2016. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff in the Doshi Action has filed a motion to consolidate the Doshi and Garbowski Actions for all purposes. A prospective lead plaintiff has filed a motion to consolidate the Doshi and Garbowski Actions for all purposes. A lead plaintiff has yet to be appointed. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases. The Company has focused substantially all of its research and development efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule, including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Wu" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., awaits ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand the Wu Action to the Massachusetts State Court, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court Department of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts ("Massachusetts State Court") against the Company, Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO, entitled Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS ("Wu Action"). The lawsuit alleges that the Company's IPO registration statement made false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company's clinical trials for galeterone, in violation of the Securities Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it was captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550, and assigned to the same judge presiding over the Doshi and Garbowski Actions. On December 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to consolidate the Wu Action with the Doshi and Garbowski Actions. On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu Action to Massachusetts State Court. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases. The Company has focused substantially all of its research and development efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule, including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Class Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit captioned Doshi v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., remains pending in New York, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 1, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Jodie P. Morrison, and Lee H. Kalowski, entitled Doshi v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06106 ("Doshi Action"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities between June 24, 2015, and July 25, 2016, and alleges that, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company's clinical trials for its drug candidate, galeterone. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On October 3, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A lead plaintiff has yet to be appointed. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases. The Company has focused substantially all of its research and development efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule, including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Bid to Stay Jackie888 Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco granted the Defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit commenced by Jackie888, Inc., Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company, Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), entitled Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796. The lawsuit alleges that, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), the Company's registration statement for its IPO made false and misleading statements and omissions about its clinical trials for galeterone. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to its IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individual defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 27, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases. The Company has focused substantially all of its research and development efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule, including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC. TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Spurlock" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Shirley Spurlock, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals v. Total Homecare Solutions, LLC, THS Healthcare Services, Inc., THS Homechoice, LLC, Adam D. Shoemaker, and Nicholas D. Alexander, Case No. 1:17-cv-00168-TSB (March 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants offer home health care services in Southwest Ohio for individuals with developmental disabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. Eric Kmetz, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com ekmetz@msdlegal.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit over "Winter Warmup" Promo Dropped ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that amid weeks of tumult at Uber, the ride-hailing technology company appears to have settled a case with a class of drivers in San Francisco, Calif. who said the company didn't follow through on a promotional promise. U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James signed a stipulated order dismissing the case, typically an indication the matter has been settled out of court. The case dates back to last year, when lead plaintiff Kimberly Berger accused the company of breach of contract, unfair competition and breach of good faith, claiming the company did not live up to the promises it made during a promotion. Specifically, Uber guaranteed its drivers rates of $26 during peak hours and $20 during regular hours, and the only requirements were that they accept 90 percent of trips, average at least one trip per hour and be online for 50 minutes of every hour worked, Berger said in the complaint. The promotion, called "Winter Warmup," took place in January 2015. Berger said Uber did not pay its drivers as promised, nor did it provide a clear expectation of how the guarantee worked. Based on the promotional email, she said, drivers were led to believe that as long as they followed the requirements, they would be guaranteed the advertised rates. But "Uber did not disclose that the hourly guarantee would be calculated based on a weekly, or per pay period, gross average all hours worked by Uber drivers, and not on an hourly basis as promised in the Uber 'Winter Warmup' guarantee promotion," Berger said in the complaint. Since the hourly guarantee reflected an average gross hourly rate before Uber fees were subtracted, she said, drivers were paid hourly rates up to 40 percent less than advertised. Berger's attorney Amy Wooton declined to comment. Uber did not return an email seeking comment by press time. The case is captioned, KIMBERLY BERGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,, Defendants. Case 3:16-cv-00041-MEJ(N.D. Cal. March 20, 2017). Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-CA, LLC: Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. Andrew M. Spurchise, Esq. Gilbert A. Castro, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 E-mail: rhulteng@littler.com aspurchise@littler.com gcastro@littler.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "McElrath" Suit Stayed Pending SCOTUS Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal magistrate in San Francisco on March 23, denied a request by Uber to force its employee to arbitrate individual claims that it cheated workers out of valuable stock options, but stayed the class action until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a similar case. "If it looks like we're going to get any certainty (from the Supreme Court's decision), maybe I'll lift the stay at some point," U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said at the Thursday hearing. Lead plaintiff Lenza McElrath, a senior software engineer from Washington state, sued Uber in federal court in December 2016. According to the class action, Uber lured prospective employees by promising them higher-value stock options than it actually gave them. McElrath says he relocated to the Bay Area to work for Uber over a competing tech firm based on its offer to give him incentive stock options, or ISOs, which are more valuable than nonqualified stock options because they aren't taxed as earnings when they're exercised. He says Uber deprives its employees of the promised ISOs shortly after they sign on in order to get a "large" payroll-tax deduction. At issue on March 22, was a 2014 arbitration agreement McElrath signed when he was hired, which contains a severable class action waiver requiring him to arbitrate on an individual basis any claims arising out of his employment with Uber. Uber contends that compelling arbitration of McElrath's individual claims conforms with an August 2016 decision by the Ninth Circuit in Morris v. Ernst & Young because the class waiver is severable from the arbitration agreement. In Morris, the appellate court ruled an employer can't require workers to sign an arbitration agreement that prohibits them from suing on behalf of a class over the terms of their employment. However, the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have disagreed with that finding, holding instead that class waivers like the one McElrath signed are legal. The Supreme Court plans to review the case sometime this year to resolve the circuit split between the Seventh and Ninth Circuits on the one side, and the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits on the other. Corley focused her on March 22 ruling squarely on Morris, concluding that McElrath's case should be stayed until the Supreme Court issues its decision. "There's no guarantee that we'll get anything definitive out of the decision," she said. Nevertheless, "we should stay the case, and in this case I don't see any prejudice to the class because it's a written contract case. It says what it says." But she allowed McElrath to serve discovery on Uber while the case is stayed so that Uber is "on notice explicitly that everything needs to be preserved." The ruling came after McElrath's attorney Scott Erlewine protested the stay in order to conduct discovery. Erlewine told the judge his client had stayed a Private Attorneys General Act case against Uber in San Francisco Superior Court last month so that he could pursue discovery in the federal case. After the state court sustained parts of Uber's demurrer in December 2016, McElrath filed the federal class action asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of state labor and unfair competition laws, among other grievances. Corely was unsympathetic. "The reason you're here is Morris," she told Erlewine. "There is a conflict in the circuits and no one can tell me with any certainty what the outcome will be." She continued: "Go back to state court and do that there. The issue is, we have an arbitration agreement, we have the [Federal Arbitration Act], we have Morris; it's a unique situation. I will permit you to serve discovery or you can go back to state court and do that as well." Erlewine is with Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin in San Francisco. Uber is represented by Patrick Gibbs with Cooley LLP in Palo Alto, California. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Court Dismisses Ex-Rowers' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Mara Rose Williams, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a District Court in Douglas County ruled in favor of the University of Kansas and dismissed the class action lawsuit filed by the parents of two former KU rowers who have said they were sexually assaulted by a former Jayhawk football player in a campus dorm. The lawsuit, filed in March 2016 by James and Amanda Tackett claimed that when recruiting their daughter to attend and row for KU, the school falsely advertized safe residence halls and violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The suit claimed the university knew there had been a number of sexual assaults in their campus dorms. That lawsuit was later joined by James McClure and his daughter Sarah McClure, who said she was sexually assaulted in August 2015 in Jayhawker Towers by the same football player who fellow rower Daisy Tackett said had also sexually assaulted her a year earlier. The Tacketts' and McClures' lawsuit asked the court for an injunction to stop KU from representing in the future KU campus housing as safe and asked for the return of all tuition, housing, and other money the university had received in connection with their daughters' attendance. KU officials have called the class action suit "baseless." District Judge B. Kay Hoff ruled on March 17 to dismiss the parents' portion of the lawsuit because "in this case students, not parents signed the housing contract with KU," according to court documents. "Even if parents paid money to KU, they are not parties to the contract. The source of the funds has no bearing on who is a consumer . . ." Also, according to court documents, Judge Hoff dismissed the student portion of the suit staying in the ruling that both students have since left KU and neither are currently in danger or facing future danger or injury at the university. "The Court finds that student-plaintiffs allege past harm and fail to show within the petition a continuing injury or that they face a real and immediate threat of being injured in the future," the court document says. Dan Curry, attorney for the Tackett and the McClure families said on March 21 that he "respects the judge's decision but we are going to appeal the decision." University officials said they were happy with the court's ruling. "The safety and well-being of our students is of the utmost importance," said Erinn Barcomb-Peterson, a university spokeswoman. "As we've said from the beginning, the lawsuit is baseless, and we are pleased the court agreed and dismissed the suit. But KU still faces two other lawsuits connected to the class action that was dismissed on March 17. Both former KU rowers -- Tackett and McClure -- have filed separate lawsuits against the university claiming the school violated Title IX when it failed to protect them and did not stop retaliation against them after the women reported they had been sexually assaulted. The university has said the former rowers lawsuits are baseless and asked the court to dismiss them. Earlier this year federal district court said it would allow the rowers' to sue the school on the bases that it was indifferent and retaliated after sexual assaults were filed. The football player was not named in any of the original court documents but was instead referred to as John Doe G. The Star later learned that Jordan Goldenberg Jr., a former KU long snapper, is John Doe G. A university investigation which uses preponderance of evidence as a standard of proof rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is used in criminal cases, concluded last March that Mr. Goldenberg had "nonconsensual sex," with Tackett and harassed McClure. Mr. Goldenberg was not charged with a crime. He agreed to be expelled from the university. VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the case titled, IN RE: VALE S.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 1:15-cv-9539-GHW (S.D.N.Y.). The Fundao Dam was owned and operated by Samarco Mineracao S.A., a mining company owned in equal parts by Brazilian mining company Vale S.A. and Australian mining company BHP Tilliton. In November 2015, the Fundao Dam, a repository of iron ore tailings located in the city of Mariana in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, collapsed, releasing a deluge of muddy waste onto the village of Bento Rodrigues below. The dam's failure caused nineteen people to lose their lives, destroyed hundreds of homes, and caused ecological damage so severe that this incident has often been described as the worst environmental disaster in Brazil's history. Lead plaintiffs, the Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association and Orange County Employees Retirement System, brought a lawsuit under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of purchasers of the common or preferred stock American Depository Receipts of Vale, between November 7, 2013 and November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2016, which names as defendants Vale, Vale's Chief Executive Officer Murilo Pinto de Oliveira Ferreira, Vale's Chief Financial Officer Luciano Siani Pires, and Vale's Executive Director, Ferrous Minerals, Gerd Peter Poppinga. Plaintiffs allege that various statements made by Vale and certain of its senior executives, both before and after the dam collapse, were false and misleading within the meaning of the American federal securities laws. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and assert a number of bases for dismissal of the complaint. In particular, they argue that the various categories of alleged misstatements are not actionable, that the complaint must be dismissed because it also fails to allege a strong inference of scienter, and that the claims based upon the challenged post-accident statements fail to adequately plead loss causation or materiality. Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have pleaded a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against defendants Poppinga and Pires, and against Vale, based upon the pre-accident statements about Vale's risk mitigation plans, policies, and procedures in Vale's 2013 and 2014 Sustainability Reports, and defendant Pires' post-accident statements about Vale's responsibility for the Fundao Dam collapse during the November 16, 2015 conference call. In all other respects, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. A copy of Judge Woods's memorandum opinion and order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https:/ g/ oo.gl/UddqZQ from Leagle.com. Alameda County Employees Retirement Association and Orange County Employees Retirement System, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by Blair Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jenny E. Barbosa -- Jenny.Barbosa@blbglaw.com -- Richard David Gluck -- Rich.Gluck@blbglaw.com -- Robert Steven Trisotto -- robert.trisotto@blbglaw.com -- Timothy Alan DeLange -- timothyd@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP Ming Hom, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Norfolk Pension Fund, Movant, Pro se Walter De Schutter, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky LLP Cristiano Laux, Movant, represented by Albert Yong Chang -- achang@bottinilaw.com -- at Johnson Bottini, LLP; Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP Sharon Jamie, Constantin Tranulis, Vicky Shen, and Scott Shen, Movants, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Farhad Babazadeh, Anders Evju, Ana Piumbini, and Robert Carlen, Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP TCAP Real Estate Inc., Movant, represented by Jason Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Alameda County Employees Retirement Association, Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Defendants, represented by Randy M. Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Michael Joralemon -- cjoralemon@gibsondunn.com -- Mark Adam Kirsch -- mkirsch@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Peter Poppinga, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Randy M. Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Michael Joralemon -- cjoralemon@gibsondunn.com -- Mark Adam Kirsch -- mkirsch@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP WALTER INVESTMENT: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until May 15, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications in securities class action lawsuits against Walter Investment Management Corporation (NYSE:WAC), if they purchased the Company's securities between February 29, 2016 and March 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). These actions are pending in the United States District Courts for the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Walter Investment and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by May 15, 2017. About the Lawsuit Walter Investment and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On March 14, 2017, Walter Investment disclosed that "[a]s of December 31, 2016, we identified a material weakness in internal controls over operational processes within the transaction level processing of" its subsidiary "Ditech Financial['s] default servicing activities." On this news, the price of Walter Investment's shares plummeted by over 38%. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. WELLS FINANCIAL: Class Suit Challenges $40MM Citizens Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders claim in a class action in Blue Earth, Minn. that Wells Federal Bank's proposed $40 million sale to Citizens Community Bancorp undervalues Wells shares and is the product of a flawed process. The case is captioned, Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs Wells Financial Corp.; James D. Moll; Randel I. Bichler; Gerald D. Bastian; David Buesing; Richard A. Mueller; and Citizens Community Bancorp Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-17-179, State of Minnesota, County of Faribault, District Court, Fifth Judicial District, March 22, 2017. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Douglas B. Altman, Esq. Adam M. Altman, Esq. ALTMAN & IZEK 901 North Third Street, Suite 140 Minneapolis, MN 55401S Tel: (612) 335-3700 Fax: (612) 335-3701 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 WP& S CONTRACTORS: Tessie, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- LUBRAINE TESSIE, JEAN H. SAINT-AIME, ELIUS REMY, TOUSSAINT CHARLEMOND, VILET MESADIEU, JUNIAS SAINT-FLEUR, and FRANCIS NICOLAS, on their own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WP& S CONTRACTORS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and WINSTON WHITE, individually, Defendants Case 9:17-cv- 80300-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or more work weeks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant, WP& S CONTRACTORS, LLC, is a construction business. Plaintiffs performed non-exempt work as a laborer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Phone: 561-853-2212 Fax: 561-853-2213 Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com XPO LOGISTICS: "Quinlan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Brice Quinlan & Laura Willis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. XPO Logistics, Inc. & XPO Logistics of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00186-FJG (W.D. Miss., March 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including straight time and overtime compensation and related penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide transportation and logistics solutions to companies in every major industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Joni E. Bodnar, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com jbodnar@mcclellandlawfirm.com - and - Matthew E. Osman, Esq. Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLP 8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330 Overland Park, KA 66210 Telephone: (913) 667-9243 Facsimile: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com krickley@workerwagerights.com YAHOO INC: UFCW Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW Local 1500 Pension Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling in its lawsuit styled UFCW LOCAL 1500 PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MARISSA MAYER; DAVID FILO; SUE JAMES; THOMAS J. MCINERNEY; CHARLES R. SCHWAB; H. LEE SCOTT, Jr.; KENNETH A. GOLDMAN; RONALD S. BELL; HENRIQUE DE CASTRO; MAX R. LEVCHIN; JANE E. SHAW; MAYNARD WEBB, Jr.; YAHOO! INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00478-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, UFCW commenced its lawsuit on January 27, 2016, alleging that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Yahoo! Inc. describes itself as a global Internet new media company that offers a branded network of media, commerce, and communication services. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The appellate case is captioned as UFCW LOCAL 1500 PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MARISSA MAYER; DAVID FILO; SUE JAMES; THOMAS J. MCINERNEY; CHARLES R. SCHWAB; H. LEE SCOTT, Jr.; KENNETH A. GOLDMAN; RONALD S. BELL; HENRIQUE DE CASTRO; MAX R. LEVCHIN; JANE E. SHAW; MAYNARD WEBB, Jr.; YAHOO! INC., Case No. 17-15435, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1 on June 19, 2017; -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1 on July 18, 2017; -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 14 days of service of the appellees' brief, pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and -- Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.[BN] * Arkansas House Approves Bill to Curb Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------- John Lyon, writing for Times Record, reports that the House on March 21 approved a bill to prohibit people other than the attorney general from bringing most class-action lawsuits alleging deceptive trade practices. In a 53-31 vote, the chamber narrowly approved House Bill 1742 by Rep. Michelle Gray, R-Melbourne, after rejecting it twice previously. The bill goes to the Senate. Gray told House members the bill has been amended to address some legislators' concerns that it might allow payday lenders to return to Arkansas. In its current form, the bill makes an exception for class-action suits alleging violations of Arkansas' constitutional amendment capping interest rates on consumer loans at 17 percent. The bill would allow a person to file an individual lawsuit alleging deceptive trade practices. It would limit damage awards to "actual financial loss," defined as the difference between the amount paid by a person for goods or services and the actual market value of the goods or services provided to a person. Ms. Gray said the bill would eliminate many frivolous suits that are filed with the intention of forcing a business to settle. She said it would not allow businesses to deceive consumers without consequences. "All we are saying is with deceptive trade, the AG will bring those suits," she said. Speaking against the bill, Rep. Mark Lowery, R-Maumelle, said it would prohibit a jury from awarding punitive damages that would punish a company for deceiving consumers. "When you're talking about deceptive practices, that's what you want," he said. Rep. John Walker, D-Little Rock, said that if his auto warranty guarantees him free oil changes and the dealer refuses to provide them, it is not financially worthwhile for him to file a suit as an individual, but a class-action suit might be worthwhile. Mr. Walker also said it would be "a woeful waste of judicial time" for 1o,000 customers to file 10,000 separate lawsuits against the same business alleging the same deceptive practice. "We do not want to take from our people the right to use this vehicle to assert claims that otherwise would not be asserted," he said. Speaking in support of the bill, Rep. Charlie Collins, R- Fayetteville, said many class-action suits are not legitimate. "Oftentimes, what somebody is doing is trying to find a way to get a lawsuit settlement that's not going to benefit individual consumers," he said. * Justice Murphy Applauds Australia's Current Class Action Regime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that concerns that there are too many class actions against companies are ill founded, according to Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy. Justice Murphy applauded Australia's current class action regime on the 25th anniversary of the regime in Australia. "Provided the actions are about serious wrongs and provided they are about serious losses, as a society shouldn't we be more worried about corporate wrongdoings rather than the number of class actions?" Justice Murphy told the 2017 Corporate Conduct and Class Action Symposium in Melbourne on March 22. Justice Murphy's comments stand in opposition to those by some quarters from the business community that have decried the "outbreak" of class actions, particularly class actions brought on behalf of investors. But Justice Murphy said the regime gave improved access to justice for many Australians who couldn't afford to launch their own action against a big company or state or federal government. "It is important to remember that before the class action regime was introduced, it was either impossible, or at least exceedingly rare for consumers, cartel victims, shareholders, investors and the victims of catastrophe to recover compensation, even when misconduct was plain," Justice Murphy said. "Since 1992 the regime has permitted claimants to recover more than $3.5 billion in compensation for serious civil wrongs they suffered," he said. Queen Mary University of London professor Rachael Mulheron also applauded the Australian class action system, contrasting it to Britain's system that was introduced only two years ago. "In the UK we have had some stops and starts where the political winds have turned cold [towards class actions] and then were revived," Professor Mulheron said. She said Britain had borrowed heavily from the Australian regime specifically because it was different to the US regime, which has allowed for a large number of entrepreneurial claims. "If there was a political statement that summed it up it is this - - in cultures that are quite different to the US it is important that it is not seen as a US style legislation," Professor Mulheron said. She said a key difference was that in Britain class action claimants could not launch an action against the government. In Australia, several claims have been launched against state governments and bodies as well as the Commonwealth. "The Australian regime covers the full gamut [of potential actions]. You take that for granted but this is a very politically sensitive topic in the UK," she said. She said that in Britain the regime would be implemented sector by sector but all claims against the government were disallowed. "I totally disagree with this political decision," she said, adding: "The political will collide with law reform and that's the way it is." Maurice Blackburn class action principal Andrew Watson said the class action system in Australia had also reduced the impact of separate claims on the court. "Experience shows that absent a functioning representative procedure, multi-plaintiff litigation is cumbersome and expensive and that the obligations which must be undertaken by plaintiffs act as a severe deterrent on the pursuit of legal rights. In short you end up with something which provides both less access to justice, is more expensive and involves more judicial involvement," Mr Watson said. * Judge Says No Americanisation of Australian Class Action System ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that respected Federal Court judge Jonathan Beach has dismissed concerns about the "Americanisation" of Australia's class action system but says challenges remain for the sector. Justice Beach told Fairfax Media ahead of the Maurice Blackburn class action symposium in Melbourne on March 22 that both plaintiff and defendant law firms saw advantages in the current class action regime. Before joining the bench, Justice Beach had acted in scores of major cases, including representing a defendant in the Kilmore East bushfire class action, Singapore's SPI Electricity, a subsidiary of SP Ausnet. The judge has since presided over a number of major cases. He is currently hearing the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's highly complex bank bill swap rate actions against Westpac, National Australia Bank, and ANZ. "People have said if Australia does something similar to the United States there will be unmeritorious claims; that we will open the floodgates to spurious claims," Justice Beach said. "The fact of the matter is the Australian model has not produced all of those vices and there have frankly been very few spurious or unmeritorious claims that have been instituted in Australia. "The other interesting thing is to look at the statistics. If you look at the US, you're 15 times more likely to have a class action per listed company than you are in Australia." Justice Beach said a key difference was that in the US, the losing party did not have to pay costs. "But under the Australian system, costs follow the event. So there's a real discipline on applicants and their lawyers to make sure they've got a viable case, otherwise they will have to pay an adverse costs order," he said. Justice Beach said unlike the US system, contingency fees for law firms were currently not allowed in the Australia class action regime. Contingency fee arrangements allow clients to pay lawyers a percentage of the settlement of a dispute rather than hourly rates. The US system also had civil juries, which had a lot of scope for awarding punitive damages, he said. However, Justice Beach said the Australian system was still facing some challenges. "There probably needs to be increasing scope for judicial scrutiny of settlements, particularly the allocation mechanisms, distributing funds, the administration of settlement scheme," he said, pointing to the judicial oversight of the bushfires class action settlements. Justice Beach said other challenges were the need for greater scrutiny of the way class actions were funded, and issues around competing class actions. "[The latter is] going to be a problem now as it has been in the past," Justice Beach said. "Today, as a result of the common fund orders, you might have more open classes but you'll still have the problem, albeit reduced, of competing class actions and that needs to be looked at." A Full Court decision last year in a class action brought against insurer QBE supported orders that in effect allowed for litigation funders' fees to be worn by all class members who stood to benefit from the proceeding, whether or not they are signed up to a funding arrangement. Another burgeoning issue was the entrance of new applicant law firms. "Some of them are less resourced and less experienced and that obviously needs to be a matter that needs to be looked at carefully over time." * Neil Gorsuch Says He's Not Biased Against Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that on the second day of his confirmation hearings, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch insisted he wasn't biased against class actions, countered claims he usually ruled against the "little guy," and declined to state his thoughts on abortion and torture. Democratic senators questioned Gorsuch on broad themes that involved separation of powers, national security and his judicial independence, and they also homed in on particular labor and employment cases that he and the Supreme Court have decided. Republicans pushed back against Democratic statements that questioned Gorsuch's ability to be independent of President Trump, who made campaign promises to appoint justices who would overrule Roe v. Wade and protect Second Amendment gun rights. They also led the nominee through his defense of decisions singled out by their Democratic colleagues, such as his dissent in what has become known as the case of the Frozen Trucker. Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, set the tone for Republicans with his first question: "What does judicial independence mean to you and would you have any trouble ruling against the president who appointed you?" Gorsuch replied: "That's a softball, Mr. Chairman." Here are some highlights from Gorsuch's second day on Capitol Hill. His confirmation hearing was set to resume on March 22. Class action enemy? Mr. Gorsuch says no Gorsuch has criticized plaintiffs lawyers for bringing "meritless" securities class actions of little benefit to investors. On March 21, he parried charges he was pro-defense. "I represented class actions and people fighting class actions," he said. "I ruled for and against class actions. It depends on facts presented to me. My most recent class action case involved residents who lived near the Rocky Flats weapons plant; they filed a class action for damage to their property. It took 25 years up and down the system. I issued a decision saying, 'Stop, enough, they win.' I believe it has been finished and they have been paid, and although it has been so long, that it has been their children getting the money." The 'little guy' in the spotlight Painting Gorsuch as always for the "big guy" didn't work out so well for Democratic senators. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, noted several 5-4 high court decisions that, in her view, made it harder for workers to hold employers accountable for job discrimination. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, she said, was in the majority in those cases, and President Trump has said "that you are the next Scalia." She asked if Gorsuch disagreed with any of those majority opinions. He declined to answer. Feinstein then asked how the public can have confidence that he will be for the "little guy." Gorsuch urged Feinstein to look at his whole record -- 2,700 opinions in 10 and a half years. "There are plenty of cases where I have ruled in favor of the little guy," he said. At her request, he listed some of them. Another 'open mind' about cameras Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as nominees, spoke favorably about having cameras in the courtroom of the Supreme Court, and then changed their minds once on the high court, noted Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. She asked Gorsuch if he supported cameras in that court. "I come to it with an open mind," he said. "It's not a question I've given a great deal of thought to. I would treat it like I would treat any other case or controversy." Questions about 'Chevron' Gorsuch's distaste for "agency deference" is well known, and it didn't take long for the nominee to address the role of the courts in reviewing agency decision-making. Gorsuch's concurring opinion -- to his majority opinion -- in the immigration case Gutierrez-Bruzuela v. Lynch tackled so-called Chevron deference. Gorsuch said it may be time to face the "behemoth in the room." Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said the opinion sounded as if Gorsuch was ready to overturn a major precedent. Would he overturn it, she asked, and had he considered the significant consequences of doing so? "I don't prejudge it," he said of Chevron deference to agency interpretations of their ambiguous statutes. "There was deference before. I don't know what all the consequences would be. I was identifying the consequences [of a particular case] for my bosses." * Perpetual Sr. Lawyer Balks at "Excessive" Class Action Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for Canberra Times, reports that the lawyer charged with deciding whether one of Australia's largest institution investors Perpetual signs up to class actions has called fees charged by class action lawyers and funders "excessive". Perpetual senior lawyer Jessie Moodley told the Corporate Conduct and Class Action symposium in Melbourne she had ongoing concerns about the fees associated with class actions. "The costs are too often excessive and are not aligned with the risks to the funder or to the law firm running the case," Ms Moodley said. "There's a need for funders and for lawyers to put downward pressure on fees. "There's more competition between funders and law firms in the market but there's been very limited downward pressure on fees." Ms Moodley said part of the concern was that there was often a lack of transparency around the fee structures for lawyers running the claim and the total amount paid to the funder of the litigation. "We currently don't have much scope to be able to negotiate them upfront," Ms Moodley said. "The message that I want to send out is that the interest of class action claimants should be higher than the interests of funders and lawyers. Shareholders should rank over them," she added. Harbour Litigation Funding's Stephen O'Dowd said there was a common misperception that funders charged excessive fees. "Despite what you think I am not going home to sleep on a bed made out of money," Mr O'Dowd said. "I look at what we charge and I don't think it is excessive," he added. Herbert Smith Freehills partner Ken Adams told the conference that while the system was generally working well there were still issues for defendants. "It seems to me that after running securities class actions for more than 15 years something is fundamentally wrong -- none of them have gone to judgment which is in its own right a shame," Mr Adams said. "There is also something fundamentally wrong that we haven't heard from institutional investors -- those who make up 80 to 90 per cent of value on the claims," he said, referring to the eagerness of institutional investors to participate in class actions but to leave retail investors to be the lead plaintiff. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Warehouse Owner Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2007, Gene Cornell Smith purchased a warehouse property located in a residential community in northern Philadelphia. Smith hired his co-defendant, Clarence Cole, to renovate the property in preparation for storing cars and creating office space for a vehicle wholesale business. In October 2007, Cole contacted a trained asbestos removal professional to inquire about contracting his services to remove asbestos on the property. After receiving a quote from the contractor, Smith opted not to hire him but instead to leave it to Cole to oversee all renovations of the property. Cole in turn hired a crew of laborers who, unaware of the presence of asbestos, used sledgehammers to break apart asbestos-coated pipes, piled contaminated materials in an outdoor dumpster, and threw the dismembered pipes from a hole in the wall on the second floor onto a driveway shared between the warehouse and a neighboring church - - all without proper safety equipment. As the renovation project progressed, bags of friable asbestos material were strewn about the yard; debris blanketed the property; and loose asbestos and contaminated pieces of metal were swept against the side of the building and left exposed to the elements. Acting on a tip, the Philadelphia Health Department investigated and informed Smith that his property was out of compliance with federal work practice standards and that he would have to hire a trained professional to remove or contain the asbestos. Work practice standards are procedures published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that dictate the steps one must follow to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq., when dealing with certain hazardous substances, such as asbestos. 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(h). Under the CAA, it is a criminal offense for an owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity in a facility like Smith's warehouse to commit a knowing violation of asbestos work practice standards. 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. Section 61.145. Despite multiple warnings from city officials, however, Smith failed to hire a trained professional to remove the asbestos material and failed to follow other asbestos-related work practice standards. See 40 C.F.R. Sections 61.145, 61.150. Instead, the renovation continued in a haphazard and dangerous manner under Cole's direction. After months of hazardous conditions and unfulfilled promises by Smith to hire a qualified contractor to bring the property up to standards, the federal government intervened by cleaning up the site using Superfund money. Smith was indicted and convicted by a jury of his peers of five counts of violating the CAA by illegally removing asbestos, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(c)(1), and, along with Cole, one count of conspiracy to illegally remove asbestos materials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. In addition to ordering Smith to pay $451,936.80 in restitution and $600.00 in a special assessment, the District Court imposed a six-level sentencing enhancement for the ongoing, continuous, or repetitive discharge, release, or emission of a hazardous or toxic substance or pesticide into the environment, U.S.S.G. Section 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A), and a two-level enhancement for Smith's role as the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity involving fewer than five participants, id. Section 3B1.1(c), for a sentence totaling forty-two months' imprisonment. Defendant's pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 raises four grounds for relief, all based on the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel: (1) counsel failed to research and raise lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) counsel failed to investigate five witnesses that would have provided exculpatory evidence; (3) counsel failed to move to suppress evidence taken from Defendant's property without a warrant, to object to evidence, and to "create a reasonable probability that, but for the errors and omissions [t]he [outcome] would have been different"; and (4) counsel failed to object during proceedings. Defendant has also moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction under the CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. Also pending is Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania finds that the motions lack merit, and will deny them without an evidentiary hearing. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/9lbVML from Leagle.com. USA, Plaintiff, represented by ELIZABETH F. ABRAMS, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE & THOMAS MOSHANG, III, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Moore" -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, in the case captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16- cv-00157-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), granted the parties' joint motions to dismiss, without prejudice, the case against Defendant Ericsson, Inc., and Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Phelps Dodge dated March 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/n1Ezg9 from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Ericsson dated March 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/nygaY6 from Leagle.com. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A. Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Court Narrows Inmate's Pro Se Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In RODNEY DOUGLAS EAVES, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BILL ELDERS, ROB KING, ZACHARY MARGURITE, CANYON PARCELL, MICHAEL KIMBERLAIN, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, JOHN DOES 1-6, and JANE DOE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-01065- KLM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff, an inmate at the Bent County Correctional Facility in Las Animas, Colorado, filed a prisoner complaint asserting four claims. With respect to the objective component, the Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed for five months to either friable asbestos, or some other insulation-like substance falling from the ceiling that constantly irritated his eyes and affected his ability to breathe. Defendants El Paso County Board of Country Commissioners, Bill Elders, Rob King, Zachary Margurite, Canyon Parcell, and Michael Kimberlain, filed a motion to dismiss. Determining whether Plaintiff's conditions of confinement violated the Eighth Amendment requires that the Court "assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk." Taking Plaintiff's allegations as true, Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado finds that he has sufficiently pled this element. "The health risk posed by friable asbestos has been acknowledged by various courts, which have held that inmates' unwilling exposure to an unreasonably high concentration of air-borne asbestos particles constitutes a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment." Even if the material is not asbestos, but rather some other exposed insulation that causes breathing problems and eye irritation, Plaintiff has still sufficiently alleged conditions that violate contemporary standards of decency, the magistrate judge held. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed for a period of several months. Therefore, the duration and intensity of the exposure sufficiently alleges a substantial risk of serious harm, the magistrate judge further held. Thus, the Court considers the second component, and denied in part the Defendants' motion with respect to the second component. A full-text copy of the Order dated March 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/YwtQxY from Leagle.com. Rodney Douglas Eaves, Plaintiff, Pro Se. El Paso Board of County Commisioners, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges , El Paso County Attorney's Office. Bill Elders, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May , El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges , El Paso County Attorney's Office. Rob King, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso County Attorney's Office. Zachary Margurite, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso County Attorney's Office. Canyon Parcell, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso County Attorney's Office. Michael Kimberlain, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso County Attorney's Office. Correct Care Solutions, Defendant, represented by Andrew David Ringel, Hall & Evans, LLC & Jacob D. Massee, Hall & Evans, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Not Proper Venue for Suits vs. Law Firms -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in two separate decisions penned by two different judges, ruled that the District is not the proper venue for the lawsuits filed by John Crane Inc. against certain law firms alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., and common law claims for conspiracy and fraud. JCI, an Illinois-based asbestos manufacturer, alleges that the law firms Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, APC, its principals, Jeffrey B. Simon and David C. Greenstone, and Shein Law Center Ltd. and its principal, Benjamin P. Shein, concealed information during discovery in multiple asbestos exposure lawsuits so they could extract larger recoveries from JCI and other asbestos manufacturers. The Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, who penned the decision with respect to JCI's lawsuit against Simon Greenstone, granted the Defendants' motion, holding that "Plaintiff has not demonstrated that venue in this district is proper. Assuming Plaintiff's allegations as true, a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to Plaintiff's claim did not occur in this district. The only activities giving rise to the claim that occurred in this district were Plaintiff's receipt of discovery responses and communications with Defendants about the litigation. All the other activities giving rise to Plaintiff's claim -- the drafting of Defendants' discovery responses, Defendants' clients' depositions, Defendants' clients' in-court testimony, Defendants' interactions with and counseling of their clients, Defendants' filing of lawsuits, trials resulting in verdicts against Plaintiff, Defendants' in-court false assertions, Defendants' alleged collaboration with other law firms -- occurred in other districts. Here, even though there were some activities giving rise to this claim that occurred in this district, those activities were "more tangential than substantial," and are in insignificant when compared to the consistent and substantial activities that occurred in other districts. Circle Grp. Internet, Inc. v. Atlas, Pearlman, Trop & Borkson, P.A., No. 01 C 7338, 2002 WL 1559637, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2002) (finding venue improper in this District because the meetings and telephone, fax, mail and email communications between the Illinois plaintiff and the defendants were "more tangential than substantial and are thus insufficient to establish venue here"). As such, venue in this District is not proper." U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., who penned the decision with respect to JCI's lawsuit against Shein granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that "[t]he Shein defendants are located in Pennsylvania, and have only had contact with Illinois in the sense that they sued JCI in Pennsylvania state court. Because "[d]ue process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State," Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1123 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), the contacts the defendants have had with this Illinois plaintiff during those asbestos lawsuits are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over them in Illinois. Accordingly, this case may not go forward in this Court and is dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction." The cases are JOHN CRANE INC. v. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, APC, Case No. 16-CV-05918 (N.D. Ill.), and JOHN CRANE INC., Plaintiff, v. SHEIN LAW CENTER, LTD. and BENJAMIN P. SHEIN, Defendants, No. 16-CV-05913 (N.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 23, 2017, with respect to Simon Greenstone is available at https://is.gd/TCPlr2 from Leagle.com and is penned by Judge Amy St. Eve. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 23, 2017, with respect to Shein is available at https://is.gd/Ca25jx from Leagle.com and is penned by Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. John Crane Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Katharine A. Roin, Esq. -- kate.roin@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott Llp. John Crane Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Katherine G. Minarik, Esq. -- katherine.minarik@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Mark Edward Ferguson, Esq. -- mark.ferguson@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & Matthew Raymond Ford, Esq. -- matthew.ford@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott Llp. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee, Jones Walker, pro hac vice, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones, Walker et al, Michael W. Magner, Sr., Jones Walker LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Macksey, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Joseph R. Marconi, Johnson & Bell, Ltd.. Jeffrey B. Simon, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee, Jones Walker, pro hac vice, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones, Walker etal, Michael W. Magner, Sr., Jones Walker LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Macksey, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Joseph R. Marconi, Johnson & Bell, Ltd.. David C. Greenstone, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee, Jones Walker, pro hac vice, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones, Walker etal, Michael W. Magner, Sr., Jones Walker LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Macksey, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Joseph R. Marconi, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Shein Law Center, LTD., Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier, Myers, Brier & Kelly, Llp, Christopher S. Wunder, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, P.C., Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Eric D. Kaplan, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, LLP. Benjamin P. Shein, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier, Myers, Brier & Kelly, Llp, Christopher S. Wunder, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, P.C., Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Eric D. Kaplan, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Babbidge Library --------------------------------------------------- Emma Degrandi, writing for The Daily Campus, reported that asbestos was found on the basement level of the University of Connecticut's Homer D. Babbidge Library, blocking off a section of the second floor as students returned from Spring Break. A naturally occurring mineral, asbestos was once utilized often and commended highly due to several factors. The mineral's fiber strength and heat resistance made it useful in building materials, such as floor tiles, according to the Mesothelioma Center. The carpets on Level B were removed by the UConn Facilities Operations department due to flooding last winter. They found that the adhesive holding the carpet to the old vinyl tiles contained asbestos, University Spokesperson Stephanie Reitz said. According to the Division of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S), the exposure to asbestos has been found to have negative health effects. However, the asbestos found in the library does not seem to be a hazard for students and staff. "The asbestos didn't pose a threat to the library's users or employees because its location -- in the adhesive under the tiles, which were then under the carpet -- meant there was no pathway to human exposure," Reitz said. The affected area was contained and contractors followed the asbestos management plan outlined on the EH&S's website. The procedure included removing the asbestos, monitoring the air and blocking off the area, Reitz said. The area remains closed and will reopen once testing proves that the air is clear of asbestos fibers, Reitz said. According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, floor tiles are presumed to contain asbestos if installed before 1981. All floor tiles are presumed to contain asbestos if tests have not been run. UConn has run extensive tests on floor tiles, according to the EH&S. The area is expected to be re-carpeted on Wednesday, UConn Library Head of Communications and Engagement Jean Nelson said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cottage Undergoes Asbestos and Mold Inspection --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Wenger, writing for Muscatine Journal, reported that pending the results of testing for asbestos and mold, the cottage near the Old Barn at Discovery Park will either be moved to another location or demolished. During Monday's meeting, the Muscatine County Board of Supervisors laid groundwork for next steps for both buildings. The board has said it does not think the cottage has a role in the future of the Old Barn, but will decide its future in the upcoming week. A letter written by Supervisor Scott Sauer outlining the board's unofficial position was read by Supervisor and Chairman Jeff Sorensen at Monday's meeting. The Old Barn will become part of Discovery Park as part of the board's strategic planning, the letter stated, and the cottage would not be beneficial to the park or for use as a restroom. "The cottage's current location, condition and limited use potential is inconsistent with the future park plans, nor is it deemed adequate restroom facility," Sorensen read. Because the Friends of the Old Barn plan to hold events at the barn, restrooms have been a key reason the group hoped to keep the cottage. Sauer's letter proposed the use of portable toilets instead. "In order to contribute to the historic importance of the barn, and to support continued use of Discovery Park, the restroom would be funded by the county," Sorensen read. If the cottage passes the asbestos and mold inspection, the board agreed the Friends group would be free to move the building to another location. "I greatly appreciate the consideration of moving the cottage rather than just demolish it," said Shelly Maharry, executive director of Friends of the Old Barn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Test Conducted at Former Days Inn Hotel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aisha Mbowe, writing for WCTI12, reported that while clean-up has begun at the former Days Inn Hotel in New Bern, demolition is still on hold. A fourth asbestos test is being conducted. Results of that test will need to be received before demolition can go forward. We spoke with someone from the company doing the test. That person said the testing has been completed and a report should be sent in sometime soon. Once the asbestos issued is corrected it will take between 30-45 days to demolish the building. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Auto Parts Building Treated for Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Garmes, writing for The Beverly Review, reported that a building in Beverly that was once occupied by an auto parts store is being treated for asbestos by a company that has been fined in recent years for multiple violations regarding the deadly mineral fiber, according to 19th Ward Ald. Matt O'Shea. The building is located at 9255 S. Western Ave., and in a mass email, O'Shea said ASAP Environmental Inc., of Cicero, is handling the asbestos removal. O'Shea said that a March 17 inspection found no violations or problems were present, but ASAP has experienced problems before. According to a U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) release, in late 2014, ASAP was among six companies fined after workers renovating Chute Middle School's cafeteria in Evanston were exposed to asbestos. The OHSA said ASAP faced two violations for "failure to ensure a competent person conducted exposure monitoring and supervised asbestos removal" and was fined $4,000. Another company involved faced a fine of $47,500. OHSA described asbestos as "a naturally occurring mineral fiber that was used in some building materials before its dangerous health effects were discovered. Fibers are released into the air during activities, such as cutting pipes, which disturb asbestos- containing materials. Asbestos fibers cannot be seen and can be inhaled into the lungs unknowingly. If swallowed, the fibers can embed in the digestive tract." According to Merriam-Webster, the fibers that are part of asbestos were once used as insulation to prevent fires but "have been implicated as causes of certain cancers." In the release, Angeline Loftus, OSHA area director at the Chicago North Area Office in Des Plaines, warned of the dangers of asbestos. "Exposure to asbestos is a dangerous workplace issue that can cause loss of lung function and cancer, among other serious health effects, and workers must be trained in procedures that minimize exposure," Loftus said. "Workers should never be put at risk because a company failed to protect them from a known, dangerous substance." Attempts to reach ASAP were unsuccessful. A sign at the building said the auto parts store moved to 3305 W. 115th St., in Merrionette Park, effective March 1. In his email, O'Shea said he has notified the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) of the local situation and has requested "strict monitoring" of the building. He called handling asbestos and other hazardous materials "a serious public safety concern." "Moving forward," O'Shea said, "I will continue to work with CDPH to ensure all appropriate safety precautions are in place." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medicare Liens Slow Asbestos Settlement Process ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lynnette Hintze, writing for Daily Inter Lake, reported that Medicare liens placed on the state of Montana's $25 million settlement with Libby asbestos victims has slowed the process of paying victims, but the money for most people involved in the settlement should be forthcoming yet this month. "Hundreds of checks should go out this week," Kalispell attorney Roger Sullivan said Monday. Sullivan is one of the attorneys with the law firm McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey that represented 826 claimants in the state settlement. The Great Falls law firm of Lewis, Slovak, Kovacich and Snipes represented another 200 claimants. Under the federal Medicare Secondary Payer Act, government agencies such as Medicare that pay for medical-related asbestos treatment place a lien on any settlement a victim receives, Sullivan explained. "Medicare has a lien on recovery by Libby asbestos victims for the asbestos-related medical expenses that Medicare has already paid for," he said. That has been the case with all settlements related to the asbestos exposure from the W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine near Libby. "Fortunately we've been able to reach agreement with Medicare and liens have been paid for a majority of people," Sullivan said. "If the cases don't fit within the large majority of those in the bell curve, if there are unusual circumstances, then those cases are individually adjusted. We're well into the process for those as well." Money from the state settlement is held by a trustee. It's the trustee that issues the checks to asbestos victims. Under the special Libby provisions in the Affordable Care Act, people of any age who have been diagnosed with asbestos-related disease qualify for Medicare. "Virtually all of our Libby clients are Medicare-qualified," Sullivan said. "But the corollary is when they (the victims) recover additional moneys, whether it's from the state or other entities, Medicare has their hand out." Earlier this year the state agreed to the $25 million settlement with more than 1,000 victims of asbestos disease over claims that state health officials did not warn Libby residents about the toxic exposure created by the W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine. Asbestos exposure from the now-defunct mine sickened and killed not only mine workers and their family members but also residents of the Libby area who were exposed by simply living in the community. In 2011 the state negotiated a $43 million settlement with asbestos victims. In exchange for releasing the state and various state agencies from future claims, more than 1,100 claimants with asbestos disease got a portion of that settlement. The recent settlement included victims who were diagnosed after the 2011 settlement through June 4, 2016. Anyone diagnosed since then potentially could have a claim against the state. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos 'Double-Dipping' Reform Bill Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Knoll, writing for Legal NewsLine, reported that an attempt by the Idaho House of Representatives to vet the claims of asbestos victims against the availability of trust funds set up two decades ago has been shot down. On March 7, the House Judiciary Committee, after four hours of discussion, rejected the newly proposed Chapter 31, Title 6 to the state's law codes with a recorded voice vote. The amendment, referred to as the Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act, would have required any claimant to submit all asbestos claims they are making or intend to ever make to the appropriate court within 45 days after the motion to file. These claims would also have had to include statements or reports from the claimant or counsel revealing if such claims could be eligible for reparations through any of the roughly 60 trusts set up in the last 20 years. In addition, the law would have required that all parties to the matter have access to the trust research materials "including all trust claims materials from all law firms connected to claimant" which would net not only the names of the petitioning law firm, but any referring law firm or any additional firm that has filed an asbestos trust claim on behalf of the claimant. Once this was done within the allotted time, the case would be heard no sooner than 180 days from filing of the claim. Alex LaBeau, president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), one of the main sponsors of the bill, told Legal Newsline that the amendment would have been a disclosure bill designed to ensure double dipping of trusts was not occurring. Proponents of the proposed amendment, like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the IACI, have stated that without such a law, the trusts would be rapidly depleted through double-dipping, in which a claimant files with multiple trusts. "The problem that we are running into is not that these claims are illegitimate, but that these claims will have one set of facts that are presented to the bankruptcy trust and [the claimant will] go into a state court with another set of facts," said LaBeau. "What we're saying is you need to go to the bankruptcy trust, that is appropriate, and then you need to take that same information and present that to the state courts." The federal Government Accounting Office (GAO) has reported that asbestos claims have resulted in the bankruptcy of more than 100 businesses, in which "eighty-five corporation filed for bankruptcy because of asbestos liabilities and several insurance companies have either failed or are in financial distress," according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in report filed in March 2017. NBER soberly notes that "[l]egal claims for injuries from asbestos involve more plaintiffs, more defendants, and higher costs than any other type of personal injury litigation in U.S. history." As of 2011, $54 billion has already been paid out in asbestos claims, with lawyers capturing a stunning $34 billion, or 63 percent, of the monetary awards. It is estimated that eventual claims will total "$200 billion to $265 billion," leaving attorneys (if the formula remains constant) pocketing $126 to $166 billion in fees. Linda Reinstein, president/CEO of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), praised the elimination of the amendment and told Legal Newsline that "[t]he Idaho State House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee recognized this was just another industry ploy to delay and deny asbestos victims justice." Reinstein went on to say that Idaho lawmakers should focus more on "preventing asbestos exposure in homes, schools, workplaces, and communities" and less on searching for industry bailouts. "Each year, an estimated 15,000 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases," Reinstein reported. "Asbestos kills. I know, I buried my husband." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah AG Sues 4 Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reported that the Attorney General of Utah has sued four of the largest asbestos bankruptcy trusts to try and force them to comply with civil investigative demands more than a dozen states have sent to the trusts, seeking information on whether they are squandering money and failing to reimburse states for Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Attorneys general from 13 Republican-leaning states including Utah, Michigan, Wisconsin and Kansas sent demand letters to the Armstrong World Industries, Babcock & Wilcox, DII and Owens Corning/Fibreboard bankruptcy trusts on Dec. 12. So far none have responded, Utah says in the complaint filed March 7 in state court in Salt Lake City. Utah said they believe "abuse of asbestos trusts is occurring" by plaintiff lawyers who largely oversee the court-approved funds set up to compensate people who claim injury from asbestos. More than 60 manufacturers of asbestos or asbestos-containing products have filed for bankruptcy under the weight of plaintiff lawsuits, paying out $17 billion since 2008, Utah said in its complaint. The AGs cite the Medicare Secondary Payer law, a little used federal statute that carries stiff penalties for insurers and others who arrange for lawsuit settlements to be paid directly to claimants without making sure they first settle outstanding bills for Medicare coverage. Penalties can include double damages and even plaintiff attorneys can be liable, said Frank Qesada, an attorney with MSP Recovery, a Miami law firm that has filed numerous national class actions on behalf of private Medicare providers. "The federal law is explicitly clear: When there's a settlement, Medicare must be reimbursed," said Quesada. "It's a sledgehammer." The Trust Advisory Committees that govern the funds are dominated by plaintiff lawyers from a few prominent firms including New York's Weitz & Luxenberg and Baron & Budd in Dallas. Because they represent claimants seeking money from the trusts while also collecting tens of millions and dollars in contingency fees from settlements paid by those trusts, Utah said, the governance structure creates "problematic incentives" that result in "lax requirements for claims." A representative of Weitz & Luxenberg didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit represents an interesting gambit by conservative state AGs, who are borrowing a tactic most often used by more liberal states to recover money from pharmaceutical manufacturers they accuse of running up Medicare and Medicaid bills. In a typical example, Massachusetts last year announced it had settled with Wyeth for $68 million as part of multistate litigation over Medicaid rebates that generated $785 million in settlements nationwide. No one from the Utah AG's office would comment. In its case, Utah says lax claims requirements allow the trusts to pay out too much to current asbestos claimants, leaving the trusts depleted and unable to pay for future medical expenses, which then fall upon the states. Courts have forced insurance companies to reimburse Medicare for medical expenses when they pay accident settlements directly to plaintiffs and can't collect the money directly from the recipients, said Thomas Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and expert on insurance law. "Given this an area of law where courts have created equitable rules that protect first-party carriers, it's perfect reasonable to try and expand the doctrine," Baker said. The states cite the case of Garlock Sealing Technologies, a North Carolina company that convinced a judge to probe into the practices of asbestos attorneys after uncovering evidence they engineered claims to recover money from trusts before filing lawsuits against solvent companies, often claiming work histories that conflicted with documents they filed with the trusts. The AGs cite the cases of several named individual claimants, suggesting they have been combing through the Garlock files. The revelations in the Garlock case also inspired companies including General Motors, Ford and Honeywell to make their own demands for trust records on payouts to workers who might have already received benefits from employer insurance or workers' comp. Humana also last year sued several prominent asbestos law firms, including Brent Coon & Assoc., Reaud Morgan & Quinn and the Bogdan Law Firm to recover $19.5 million they say asbestos trusts paid to their clients. Quesada of MSP Recovery said most personal injury attorneys check the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database for outstanding liens before cutting checks to their clients, but CMS only tracks patients with Medicare as their primary insurer. Employee, union and private plans don't show up on the database, leaving billions of dollars in medical bills that could be recovered by lawsuits like the ones the states and private companies are now bringing. The U.S. House of Representatives folded a law requiring broader disclosures of asbestos trust claims into its Furthering Class Action Fairness Litigation bill, which passed the House and is now before the Senate. That law would require the trusts to make public some claims information so companies could determine if plaintiffs had made conflicting claims about their exposures before suing them. President Trump has said he supports the bill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanly Conroy Renews $100,000 Pledge for ADAO ------------------------------------------------------------- Simmons Hanly Conroy, one of the nation's largest mass torts firms, announced that the firm has renewed its annual $100,000 sponsorship of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), also supporting the ADAO's 13th Annual International Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference. The firm is the longest consecutive sponsor of the conference and has been a platinum sponsor for the past six years. "Simmons Hanly Conroy is proud to support the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's important, ongoing work to help prevent asbestos exposure and protect the rights of individuals and their families who are impacted by mesothelioma and other asbestos- related cancers," said Chairman John Simmons. ADAO Co-founder, President and CEO Linda Reinstein said, "Simmons Hanly Conroy continues to be a generous and principal supporter of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and its annual conference. We are grateful for the firm's dedication to helping to spread awareness of the dangers of asbestos and to our goal of a global ban on asbestos." Founded in 2004, the ADAO is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure, eliminating asbestos-related diseases, and protecting asbestos victims' civil rights through education, advocacy and community initiatives. The ADAO's 2017 conference will take place April 7-9 at the Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel in Arlington, Va. Titled "Where Knowledge and Action Unite," the 2017 conference is expected to draw more than 40 speakers including experts, victims, union representatives and lawmakers from six countries to discuss joint efforts in education, advocacy and awareness. The ADAO is the only U.S. nonprofit that organizes annual conferences dedicated to preventing and eliminating asbestos-caused diseases. This year's conference will feature the following discussion sessions on April 8: Session I: Progress and Challenges from the Frontline Session II: Medical Advancements: Diagnosing and Treating Mesothelioma and Other Asbestos-Related Diseases Session III: Prevention: What Is It? Where Is It? What Do I Do? Session IV: Advocacy: Global Ban Asbestos Action For additional information about the ADAO's 13th Annual International Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference, click here. Simmons Hanly Conroy is a leading voice for victims of mesothelioma and asbestos exposure and has a long-standing commitment to supporting those impacted by asbestos-related diseases. Since 1999, the firm has donated more than $20 million to cancer research, including millions of dollars to mesothelioma research institutions. The firm's support for the cause also includes its annual Alton Miles for Meso 5K Race & 3K Fun Run/Walk and other Miles for Meso races that have raised approximately half a million dollars nationwide since 2009. About Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC Simmons Hanly Conroy is one of the nation's largest mass tort law firms. Primary areas of litigation include asbestos and mesothelioma, pharmaceutical, consumer protection, environmental and personal injury. The firm's attorneys have been appointed to leadership in numerous national multidistrict litigations, including Vioxx, Yaz, Toyota Unintended Acceleration and DePuy Pinnacle. The firm also represents small and mid-size corporations, inventors and entrepreneurs in matters involving business litigation. Offices are located in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Alton, Ill. Read more at www.simmonsfirm.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure A Major Issue in Puerto Rico --------------------------------------------------------------- Even though the use of asbestos-containing materials has been dramatically reduced over the last several decades, its past use is still causing exposure concerns in homes, schools and businesses. In early March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a new report about an increase in the number of deaths associated with malignant mesothelioma. The rise in deaths was detailed in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. It showed the number of annual deaths due to the condition actually increased from 2,479 in 1999 to 2,597 in 2015. People diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma have often worked or lived in places where they inhaled or swallowed asbestos. An unsettling fact about the disease is it can takes years to decades to appear after exposure. Even though the use of asbestos-containing materials has been dramatically reduced over the last several decades, its past use is still causing exposure concerns in homes, schools and businesses. This is because it was once used in thousands of products and common building materials, many of which are still in present in homes and buildings. As these materials age and become friable, or if they are disturbed during demolition, remodeling and renovation activities, they can easily become aerosolized. "Malignant mesothelioma is a disease where cancer cells are found in the thin layer of tissue that lines the chest cavity and covers the lungs or the thin layer of tissue that lines the abdomen and most of the organs in the abdomen," said Harry Pena, President of Zimmetry Environmental. "One's chance of developing the disease increases with the amount and type of asbestos fibers inhaled." Zimmetry's asbestos and indoor air quality (IAQ) experts provide comprehensive testing and consulting services to identify asbestos and other exposure hazards in Puerto Rico and across the Caribbean. These services protect the public, workers and help to keep companies in regulatory compliance. To learn more about Zimmetry Environmental and asbestos, indoor air quality, environmental, or compliance testing and consulting services, please visit www.zimmetry.com, call (787) 995.0005, or email info@zimmetry.com About Zimmetry Environmental Since 2002, Zimmetry Environmental has been providing environmental consulting services to building owners and managers, architects, engineers, EHS professionals, and Fortune 500 companies. The company is based in Puerto Rico and provides services across the Caribbean and Central America. The professionals at Zimmetry offer environmental compliance, indoor air quality (IAQ), asbestos, lead-based paint, Phase I ESAs, and general environmental consulting services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains Major Health Hazard for Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Times Leader Online reported that only a few decades ago, asbestos was thought of as a "miracle mineral." The fiber's heat and fire resistant properties, paired with substantial durability, made it a very favorable choice for building materials. Asbestos was widely used prior to the 1970s; however, it was soon realized that asbestos exposure was causing an array of health issues, particularly in those who have worked with the material. In 1973, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first ban on an asbestos product. Throughout the next 20 years the EPA continued to ban certain uses of the material and set restrictions, the biggest being in 1989 when the EPA issued a final rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The rule banned the use of most products containing asbestos, but was vacated and remanded by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals two years later. By backtracking on the EPA's rule, a majority of the restrictions in play were lifted. Due to this, thousands of people in the United States and around the globe have been exposed to asbestos, which is known to cause health complications. Shipbuilding and construction are the most common occupations to be exposed to asbestos, with more than 96 percent of exposure happening in one of these two professions. Firefighters, ironworkers, plumbers, industrial plant workers and veterans also face increased exposure to asbestos because of their professions. These occupations are subjected to a higher risk of developing diseases such as mesothelioma cancer, lung cancer and a chronic condition called asbestosis. Mesothelioma, specifically, is a very rare and extremely aggressive cancer resulting from breathing in airborne asbestos fibers. The fibers stick to the mesothelium, a membrane located in the lungs, abdomen or heart, and can remain there for 20 to 40 years before presenting symptoms. Due to the long latency period, mesothelioma often is caught in the later stages and typically comes along with a poor prognosis. Those diagnosed are given, on average, 12-21 months to live, and only about 9 percent of mesothelioma patients live beyond five years. A recent report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that malignant mesothelioma deaths have increased by 5 percent each year between 1999 and 2015. This coincides with previous studies that have predicted the rate of mesothelioma deaths will increase through at least 2020. Efforts are increasing to have a full asbestos ban put in place. An asbestos ban is currently in place in more than 60 countries around the world at least partially, and hopes are that increased awareness will lead to a full ban in the United States to protect our workers and their futures. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cranbury School Seek State Reimbursement --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Schultz, writing for The Hour, reported that public school officials are looking to the state to help cover the $300,000 price tag for an asbestos abatement project at Cranbury Elementary School. The widespread remediation would start this summer and would remove asbestos -- a naturally occurring mineral once used in a variety of building materials but now known to cause cancer -- from floor tiles in over 13,500 square feet in 21 locations throughout the school, including classrooms, the kitchen and library. "Cranbury Elementary School is outfitted with vinyl asbestos floor tile in all classrooms, offices, library and store rooms," educational specification documents for the project state. "Our Asbestos Management Plan has confirmed that this material tested positive for asbestos-containing material and highly recommends a removal and replacement due to increased health concerns." Though plans are already in the works to conduct other renovations at Cranbury Elementary School, over the next five years as a part of the school district's overarching facilities master plan, school officials said those renovations will not be ready to proceed by this summer and that existing flooring "presents a health concern" so abatement "must proceed immediately and cannot wait." A total of $300,000 in funds to cover the cost of the project was approved in the 2016-17 capital budget, but officials are looking to the Board of Education for permission to continue on in the process to obtain partial grant reimbursement from the state, said Thomas Hamilton, chief financial officer for Norwalk Public Schools, in a memo to school district leaders. To do so, school officials must file the project as a "non- priority, code violation project" with the State Office of School Construction Grants and Review, Hamilton said. That requires approval of educational specifications from the Board of Education. The Common Council must also approve aspects of the project. If approved by the state, the project would be eligible for approximately 32 percent grant reimbursement, Hamilton said. The Board of Education is expected to vote to approve the plans at a meeting. Due to the large magnitude of the project, officials noted that the abatement will likely spill over to the summer of 2018, with the work being completed only during summer breaks. A total of $4.36 million would be spent in renovations at Cranbury Elementary School over the next half-decade as a part of the Board of Education's revised capital budget plan, which was fully supported by Mayor Harry Rilling in his overall city five-year capital budget recommendation. As a part of that plan, all priority one through four issues at Cranbury would be addressed, including an assessment and upgrade to the school's outdated electrical system. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TLR Releases Paper on Texas Asbestos Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Texans for Lawsuit Reform Foundation has released its latest paper, "The Story of Asbestos Litigation in Texas and Its National Consequences," a comprehensive look at Texas' involvement with asbestos litigation -- the longest running mass-tort in America. In its 40-year history, asbestos litigation has resulted in billions of dollars of payments to claimants and untold amounts paid in attorney fees and other litigation-related costs. "As with many forms of lawsuit abuse, the asbestos lawsuit scheme in Texas and nationwide was perpetrated by a handful of lawyers, many of whom practice in Texas," TLR Foundation President Hugh Rice Kelly said. "These lawyers' activities were carried out at the expense of the judicial system, thousands of plaintiffs who were pawns in the litigation game, and hundreds of defendants who paid settlements to uninjured plaintiffs." While asbestos was an exceptionally harmful product that caused real harm to many persons, the report details how the abusive mass-tort asbestos litigation was driven by lawyers who actively solicited unimpaired clients, bundled them into groups and filed lawsuits in bulk, in part, to overwhelm the judicial system and the defendants. Additionally, one of the most notable asbestos plaintiff law firms developed a method for secretly coaching their clients to target specific defendants. This mass-litigation machine was designed to enrich lawyers, rather than achieve justice for injured people. Texas has taken the lead in dealing with asbestos litigation since 2005. The passage and application of Senate Bill 15 (2005) and House Bill 1325 (2013) to the asbestos cases pending in Texas showed evidence that thousands of lawsuits had been filed in Texas courts on behalf tens of thousands of plaintiffs who did not have an injury for which to seek compensation. Additionally, in 2015, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1492, requiring asbestos plaintiffs to reveal claims they submitted to the trusts set up by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos claimants in order to address the issue of inconsistent claiming of exposure history. The paper also discusses recent efforts to pass federal legislation addressing asbestos-related mass-tort issues. Texans for Lawsuit Reform Foundation conducts and supports academically sound, impartial and non-partisan research, study, analysis and writing related to the justice system in Texas. Research is conducted by lawyers, scholars, analysts and professionals with experience and expertise in the areas being researched and reported. The TLR Foundation's published research and reports are posted on its website and are available to the public. The purpose of the TLR Foundation's activities is public education on matters concerning the Texas justice system, including its statutory and common law, its regulations and administrative agencies, and the organization and operation of its courts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Containing Dust Forces Closure of Lab --------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Yun, writing for The Varsity, reported that U of T is warning of potential exposure to asbestos in the Medical Sciences Building after "unusual dust" was reported during renovations in the building. Trevor Young, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, sent out a notice to all Physiology graduate students and postdocs via email. In addition, the University of Toronto Graduate Students' Union (UTGSU) disseminated information about asbestos. The university has been undertaking the $189.9 million Lab Innovation for Toronto (LIFT) project, which aims to make various improvements to laboratory infrastructure on campus. In November 2016, the university began "asbestos abatement and demolition on five separate sites" within the building. According to Young, there were reports of "unusual dust" in early February in the sixth-floor lab located at room 6360, which was across from the construction site. "Immediately upon notification, U of T's Hazardous Construction Materials Group and [U of T Environmental Health & Safety (EHS)] were advised, attended, took samples and closed the lab," Young wrote. "Test results February 1 confirmed asbestos in the dust; the lab and its contents were then cleaned, and the labs were cleared for re-occupancy within days." EHS also cleaned and cleared two other labs for re-occupancy located at rooms 7366 and 7368. These labs were connected to room 6360 and it was found that they also had asbestos-containing dust. On February 24, "unusual dust" was also reported at lab 6334, which was located in an area "completely unconnected to the first incident." Asbestos was also present in the February 24 dust samples. After the university cleaned and cleared the lab for reoccupancy, dust reappeared there and "it and two lab support rooms were closed on March 7 while further testing was conducted." Young states that a third-party contractor continues to sample the air quality, working on one floor per day. "One lab remains closed; once we are notified by EHS that the space has been inspected and cleared for occupancy, we will let you know," wrote Young. ********* 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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. 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 * * *