/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170510.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 93 Headlines ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Sergeants Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: American Plan Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Cesar Castillo Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ACTAVIS HOLDCO: UFCW Local 1500 Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. AETERNA ZENTARIS: "Li" Suit Seeks Certification of Class AKORN INC: A.F. OF L.- A.G.C. Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Reinstates Baggage Fee Suit AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. California AT&T SERVICES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Wage-and-Hour Suit AUSTRALIA: Queensland Government Sued Over Palm Island Riots AUSTRALIA: Creevey Russell Files Shattercane Weed Class Action AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Defective Car Parts Class Action BUFFALO TRACE: Seeks Dismissal of Whiskey False Labeling Suit C.M.C. DRYWALL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CABLE NEWS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in VPPA Class Action CAPFUSION LLC: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims EMILY CORP: Camp Drug Store Sues Over TCPA Violation EXPRESS PAYROLL: "Medellin" Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime CATALYST HEDGED: June 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set CNN: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action EPIC SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Extends Initial Briefs Deadline FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in "Grimstad" Suit FCA US: "Johnson" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777 FCA US: "Rivero" Class Suit Included in MDL 2777 FCA US: "Rothe" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777 FLINT, MI: Benesch Attorney Discusses Sixth Circuit Ruling FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. FOUGERA PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. FOUGERA PHARMA: St. Paul Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. FOUGERA PHARMA: United Food Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania LANNETT COMPANY: 1199SEIU Nat'l Fund Suit Transferred to Penn. FOX NEWS: Reporter Files New Discrimination Suit in New York FOX NEWS: Reporter's Complaints are Baseless, Says News Firm FOX NEWS: Pressure Over Abusive Workplace Unlikely to Go Away FU HING: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers FYRE MEDIA: Faces $100MM Fraud Class Action Over Fyre Festival GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Newspaper Surcharges GERON CORP: July 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set GERON CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Bail System Unconstitutional, Court Rules HERTZ: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action HOME CITY: May 17 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set HONDA: Malaysian Family Files Suit in US Over Air Bag Defect HUAWEI DEVICE: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Smartphone HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: "Gorbatchev" Sues for Defective Nexus Phones IDAHO: Dismissal of "Tucker" Suit Partly Affirmed IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Class Action IRS PAINTERS: "Chacon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $110.5MM in Talc Powder Case KENMORE: Settles Consumers' Barbecue Grill Class Action LANNETT COMPANY: American Fed. Fund Suit Transferred to Penn. LANNETT COMPANY: Plumbers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports LULAROE: Takes Steps to Rectify Defective Leggings Issue MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: July 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MDL 1700: Class Deal in FedEx Employment Practices Suit OK'd MIDWAY OILFIELD: "Flores" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay MONSANTO: Former EPA Director Taken to Court in Glyphosate Case NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NUVASIVE INC: Judge Denies Request to Stay Kickback Class Action ORACLE CORP: Denial of "Matam" Suit Class Certification Affirmed OUNZE CORPORATE: "Rives" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages POLK FOUNDATION: "Confair" Sues Over Non-Payment of OT Pay PUERTO RICO: Bondholders File Suits After Litigation Freeze Ends PURDUE PHARMA: Settles OxyContin Class Action for $20 Million RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation ROMBOUT VILLAGE: Shareholders File Class Action Against Board ROYAL BANCSHARES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action RUBIN & ROTHMAN: "Dickon" Suit Seeks Class Certification SAFEWAY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Overtime Pay Class Action STEAK 'N SHAKE: Must Face ADA Class Action, Judge Rules SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Gamory" Suit Over FDCPA Violations SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action TABATCHNICK FINE: Faces GE Ingredients Labeling Class Action TARO PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. TENNESSEE: DCS Prepares to Exit Court Foster Care Oversight TEXAS: 5th Cir. Vacates Fee Award to Plaintiffs in Medicaid Suit THIRD AVENUE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TILLIS PEST: Faces "Barbour" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TREASURY WINE: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Mediation US CONCRETE: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WELLS FARGO: August 30 TCPA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set * Congressman Trey Gowdy Supports Class Action Reform Bill * DOL's Fiduciary Rule Spurs Changes Despite Implementation Delay * FDA Calories Labeling Rule Carries Legal Risks for Food Chains * New NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra May Undo Pro-Union Changes * OSC's Whistleblower Program Faces Criticism * Use of Pelvic Mesh Subject of Senate Inquiry in Australia ********* ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Sergeants Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated and American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc., PLIVA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and UPSHER-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-980, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01771-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Christina H.C. Sharp, Esq. Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California St 14th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com chc@girardgibbs.com dcg@girardgibbs.com smg@girardgibbs.com - and - Peter George Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway 27th Fl. New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com The Defendant Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is represented by: Hector Torres, Esq. Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq. Seth B. Davis, Esq. Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq. Sheron Korpus, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-1700 E-mail: htorres@kasowitz.com mekcourtnotices@kasowitz.com sdavis@kasowitz.com smoskowitz@kasowitz.com skorpus@kasowitz.com The Defendant Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is represented by: D. Jarrett Arp, Esq. Melanie L. Katsur, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8678 E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com mkatsur@gibsondunn.com - and - Indraneel Sur, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2474 E-mail: isur@gibsondunn.com The Defendant Mylan Inc. is represented by: Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq. Michael S. Sommer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 497-7728 E-mail: jbank@wsgr.com msommer@wsgr.com The Defendant PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Omid Gabriel Banuelos, Esq. Sarah F. Teich, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5901 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com obanuelos@wc.com steich@wc.com The Defendant Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is represented by: Devora W. Allon, Esq. Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Nathan Edmund Taylor, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-5967 E-mail: devora.allon@kirkland.com lefkowitz@kirkland.com nate.taylor@kirkland.com ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: American Plan Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned American Federation of State County And Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., PLIVA, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-1039, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01772-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan Patrick Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Michelle Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery St 29th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP 1904 Third Ave Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Sona Ramesh Shah, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com sshah@zsz.com The Defendant Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is represented by: Hector Torres, Esq. Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq. Seth B. Davis, Esq. Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq. Sheron Korpus, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-1700 E-mail: htorres@kasowitz.com mekcourtnotices@kasowitz.com sdavis@kasowitz.com smoskowitz@kasowitz.com skorpus@kasowitz.com The Defendant Mylan Inc.is represented by: Chul Pak, Esq. Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq. Michael S. Sommer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 497-7728 E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com jbank@wsgr.com msommer@wsgr.com The Defendant Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Omid Gabriel Banuelos, Esq. Sarah F. Teich, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5901 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com obanuelos@wc.com steich@wc.com The Defendant Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is represented by: D. Jarrett Arp, Esq. Melanie L. Katsur, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8678 E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com mkatsur@gibsondunn.com - and - Indraneel Sur, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2474 E-mail: isur@gibsondunn.com The Defendant Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is represented by: Devora W. Allon, Esq. Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Nathan Edmund Taylor, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-5967 E-mail: devora.allon@kirkland.com lefkowitz@kirkland.com nate.taylor@kirkland.com ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Cesar Castillo Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo New York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 17-00250, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01767-CMR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com ACTAVIS HOLDCO: UFCW Local 1500 Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 16-09792, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01765-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Robin Vandermeulen, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com AETERNA ZENTARIS: "Li" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BING LI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETERNA ZENTARIS INC., DAVID A. DODD, JUERGEN ENGEL, DENNIS TURPIN, JUDE DINGES, RICHARD SACHSE and PAUL BLAKE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv- 07081-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order: 1. granting their motion for class certification of: "persons or entities that purchased Aeterna securities on a U.S. Exchange or in a U.S. transaction during the period from August 30, 2011 through November 6, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who did not sell such securities prior to November 6, 2014 (Class); 2. appointing Mr. Dinh, Mr. Khodavandi, and Dr. Vizirgianakis as Class Representatives, and 3. appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class (Class Counsel) and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello as Liaison Counsel for the Class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k4X92GEi The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. John M. Agnello, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 Facsimile: (973) 994 1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com mrago@carellabyrne.com zbower@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Kara M. Wolke, 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: rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313 1887 Facsimile: (973) 833 0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com AKORN INC: A.F. OF L.- A.G.C. Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled A.F. OF L.- A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., and Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 16-08469, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01757-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael M. Buchman, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 600 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 577-0040 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com The Defendant AKORN, INC. is represented by: Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1036 Franklin River Forest, IL 60305 Telephone: (312) 862-2382 E-mail: douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.com - and - Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Joseph Serino Jr., Esq. Katherine A. Rocco, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4970 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com joseph.serino@kirkland.com katherine.rocco@kirkland.com The Defendant Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by: Laura S. Shores, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com - and - Margaret A. Rogers, Esq. Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-7830 E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com saul.morgenstern@apks.com The Defendant Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is represented by: David Neil Cinotti, Esq. VENABLE LLP 1270 Avenue of The Americas, 24th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 307-5500 E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com - and - James Douglas Baldridge, Esq. Lisa Jose Fales, Esq. VENABLE LLP 575 - 7th Street North West Washington, DC 20004-1601 Telephone: (202) 344-4703 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com ljfales@venable.com The Defendant Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc.is represented by: Damon W. Suden, Esq. William A. Escobar, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 101 Park Ave 27th Fl. New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 E-mail: dsuden@kelleydrye.com wescobar@kelleydrye.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Reinstates Baggage Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit seeking the return of baggage fees to passengers whose luggage was delayed or lost on flights with an airline that merged with American Airlines. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on May 3 that the lawsuit provided sufficient evidence for its claim that the former US Airways promised to deliver bags when passengers landed. The ruling overturned a lower-court decision that dismissed the lawsuit. A spokesman for American Airlines said the company was reviewing the decision and considering its legal options. The plaintiff, Hayley Hickcox-Huffman, sought her $15 baggage fee after her bag did not show up on a carousel following a US Airways flight to California. Her lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of other passengers like her. AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against American Medical Supply Center, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive. The case is captioned Mynor F. Portillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Medical Supply Center, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-02932 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2017). American Medical Supply Center, Inc. provides home medical equipment supplies, sales, rentals, and service to consumers in the bay area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com AT&T SERVICES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in San Francisco has denied AT&T Services Inc's bid to dismiss a wage-and-hour lawsuit accusing the telecommunications giant of not paying its training specialists overtime as required by state and federal law. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on April 28 that a jury should decide whether the plaintiffs qualified for the Fair Labor Standards Act's administrative exemption from overtime eligibility, which turns on whether they exercised independent judgment on significant matters. The plaintiffs are represented by Outten & Golden and Posner & Rosen. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Queensland Government Sued Over Palm Island Riots ------------------------------------------------------------ Jorge Branco, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that a class action against the Queensland government over a "racist" police response to an infamous death in custody, and resulting riots on Palm Island, could cost almost $40 million, lawyers claim. A Federal Court decision in December found police were racist in responding to Cameron "Mulrunji" Doomadgee's death and the unrest that followed, paving the way for further action. Riot ringleader Lex Wotton and two of his family members were awarded $220,000 but the decision opened the door for many more affected members of the Palm Island community to claim compensation. While Mr Wotton, his wife and mother were the plaintiffs, they were acting as representatives for the whole of Palm Island under the Racial Discrimination Act. A class action notice was filed to the Federal Court on April 28, setting out details of the suit and who could claim. Broadly speaking, the eligible "group" was Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living on Palm Island when Mr Doomadgee died on November 19, 2004, who still usually lived there on March 25, 2010 but not all would be eligible, according to the notice. Those arrested or whose homes were raided by SERT officers during the riots, or who wanted to leave or return to the island while it was in a state of emergency, could be eligible. Levitt Robinson Solicitors senior partner Stewart Levitt -- SLevitt@levittrobinson.com -- whose firm represented Mr Wotton, said close to 500 people had signed on to the class action. He said if the lawsuit ran its course, the government could be liable for $20 million, plus almost as much in interest. However, it was more likely the action would end in a settlement after negotiations. "Not all of them have in-principle claims. Some of them were too remote from the situation to expect to be compensated," Mr Levitt said. "On the other hand there are instances where people suffered in a manner which you wouldn't not necessarily anticipate. "For example where because there was a state of emergency and there was a ban on all commercial travel to and from Palm Island for a couple of days, that meant that in some instances, there was a mother that was . . . trapped in Palm Island when her child was in intensive care in Townsville and so forth. "People couldn't travel and they were traumatised by the emotional separation they experienced." Mr Mulrunji died in police custody after Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley arrested him for hurling what he considered abuse. The intoxicated 36-year-old struggled and fell with the officer, before he was "dragged limp and unresponsive into a cell" and died within an hour, according to Justice Debbie Mortimer's December decision. She stated police officers investigating Mr Mulrunji's death would have acted differently in a remote non-Aboriginal community. It found they did not ac impartially and independently, highlighting that Senior Sergeant Hurley was never treated as a suspect and in fact, picked the investigators up from the airport and took them to his home for a meal. A preliminary autopsy report finding Mr Mulrunji's death was an accident despite his four broken ribs and a liver almost cleaved in two sparked a riot, which Mr Wotton was eventually convicted of inciting. The state government initially appealed the finding, before withdrawing in February. A jury acquitted Senior Sergeant Hurley of Mr Mulrunji's manslaughter in 2007. When contacted on May 1, police were not able to immediately respond. A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Yvette D'ath said the notice was ordered by the Federal Court and set a deadline for people to sign up for the class action. That deadline is June 30. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Creevey Russell Files Shattercane Weed Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a Queensland law firm has announced it has lodged a class action which it says is the first of its kind. Creevey Russell Lawyers has lodged a claim in the Queensland Supreme Court on behalf of sorghum growers impacted by the aggressive shattercane weed produced by contaminated seeds. Creevey Russell principal Dan Creevey said the class action by the firm marks the first representative proceeding filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland, following amendments to the Civil Proceedings Act in November last year. He noted the team was very proud to be the first to file such a "historic claim". "Shattercane grows rapidly and competes aggressively with crop plants, significantly reducing yield, quality and value of harvested seed, so this is a massive issue for growers," Mr Creevey said. "Australia's agricultural industry earns more than $155 billion-a- year, but certain sectors of the industry could be under significant threat due to contaminated seeds. "Contaminated seeds can carry disease, produce low-grade harvests which may also in turn produce sterile seeds if contaminated with weed seed. The contaminated seed can be resistant to pesticides and normal processes of crop control." Mr Creevey is calling for affected growers to come forward by registering via an online portal. He noted that the firm is keen to meet with more sorghum growers impacted by shattercane. "If shattercane is costing you time and money to control and you are concerned about the financial impact on you and the value of your property, then Creevey Russell Lawyers are here to assist," he said. "If you purchased seed contaminated with shattercane weed, then you may have a claim to financial compensation. If you believe that your property may be affected by seed that has been contaminated, please contact Creevey Russell Lawyers for a no obligation discussion on your concerns. Our rural property law team have a wide experience in advising primary producers."[GN] AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Defective Car Parts Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that AutoZone Inc. and S.A. Gear Co. Inc. told an Illinois federal judge that allegations about a defective car part cannot go forward as a class action, arguing on April 28 that identifying class members would require people to take apart their car engines, among other hurdles. Difficulties in identifying class members who bought the at-issue part -- an allegedly defective timing chain tensioner for use in Chrysler or Dodge engines -- and determining whether the putative class members relied on the companies' representations about its function when buying the tensioner make it impossible to certify the class, the companies told U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle in separate briefs. Similarly, the vast differences in state consumer fraud laws, which the suit relies on for relief for its claim the companies knew the parts were defective when they sold them, prevents the suit from making claims on behalf of a nationwide class, according to parts maker S.A. Gear and parts retailer AutoZone. "In short, this is a putative class action that has no business being certified for class treatment, under any circumstances," S.A. Gear argued. "Were it to be so certified, it would be (in the words Judge Posner) 'a nightmare of a class action.'" Plaintiffs Steve Williamson and Rhonda LeMaster had pointed to a ruling from Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner's Seventh Circuit as reason for why their proposed class should be certified, saying the appellate court held that perfect commonality is unnecessary in cases of consumer fraud class actions. Holding classes who purchased a low-cost consumer product to that standard "would eviscerate consumer-fraud class actions," the appeals court had written. The low cost of the part in question, the consumer fraud the suit alleges, and the class members' potential injury if the part fails make the case "the reason why class actions exist," Mr. Williamson and Ms. LeMaster told Judge Yandle in their motion for class certification. Mr. Williamson and Ms. LeMaster had filed their suit in 2015, claiming Williamson purchased the part to replace the timing chain tensioner in Ms. LeMaster's car from AutoZone. The part failed after just a few days, the suit claims, so Williamson bought another and replaced it again, only to have it fail for a second time. Judge Yandle said in January 2017 the pair's claim that the companies sold the customers the parts with the knowledge they were likely to fail -- a claim brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act -- could go forward. The suit claims the product's website and packaging contained promises of strength and durability, promises Judge Yandle said could constitute a warranty under Illinois law. In their certification motion, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify a nationwide class of people who purchased the part from AutoZone or a class of Illinois residents who purchased it. But the companies said on April 28 that the nationwide class is impossible because of the differences in state consumer fraud laws. Plus, each class member will have to first find out if they have the part in their car and then show how they were misled by the part's packaging, or prove that a specific flaw in the part described in the suit was the reason it failed in their car, the companies said. They also criticized the lead counsel and lead plaintiffs' ability to represent the class. Ms. LeMaster did not purchase the part in question at all, and Williamson did not own the car that contained it when the part failed, the companies said. And the fact the proposed lead counsel has not provided an expert opinion at this stage in the litigation is troubling, the companies added. "The absence of any expert testimony in support of plaintiff's claims at this stage is unusual, to say the least, in this type of class action litigation, and raises questions about counsel's commitment to the case or, alternatively, whether counsel was simply unable to find any expert to support the claims," S. A. Gear wrote. "Neither possibility bodes well for the class." Attorneys for the putative class did not respond to requests for comment on May 1. The putative class is represented by John J. Driscoll and Gregory Pals of the Driscoll Firm PC. AutoZone is represented by Jonathan D. Jay, Michael R. Cashman and Anne T. Regan of Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC. S.A. Gear is represented by Jonathan H. Garside and Sarah B. Mangelsdorf of Fox Galvin LLC. The case is Williamson v. S.A. Gear Co. Inc. et al., case number 3:15-cv-00365, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. [GN] BUFFALO TRACE: Seeks Dismissal of Whiskey False Labeling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that distilleries that have been accused of falsely labeling their products have filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against them. Buffalo Trace Distillery Inc., Old Charter Distillery Co. and Sazerac Co. Inc. are the defendants that on April 6 requested that the lawsuit be dismissed. Plaintiffs Stephen Penrose, James Thomas, Joseph Guardino and Daniel Pope, who were customers, claimed the companies engaged in false advertising regarding the age of Buffalo Trace bourbon. The plaintiffs claim they lost money when they bought the whiskey, believing it to be bourbon that was aged eight years. The defendants state that the label indicates the product was aged for eight seasons, not years, and therefore the plaintiffs misunderstood the label. "No reasonable consumer would transform a naked number '8' into saying that the bourbon 'has been aged for 8 years,' or translate 'seasons' into 'years,'" the companies argued in the motion for dismissal. In their motion, the defendants state that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by a safe harbor defense. "The safe harbor applies because the number 8 and the term 'eight seasons' on Old Charter's label are authorized by federal law, as regulated by the Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau," the motion states. They also say their motion should be granted as the plaintiffs failed to identify the state law they were bringing their action under. In addition, the companies assert that the plaintiffs' common law claims fail because the label does not imply warranty, there is no privity of contract and that the plaintiffs cannot plead a duty of care that was breached They have requested an oral argument on the motion, "because it will provide the court with a material understanding of the reasons warranting dismissal of this action with prejudice." The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Missouri. [GN] C.M.C. DRYWALL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a laborer alleges his former Kenner employer failed to pay the correct rate for overtime work and has filed a class-action suit. Horian Elias Maradiaga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint, on April 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against C.M.C. Drywall Inc. and Tulio Murillo alleging that they violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between 2013 and August 2016, plaintiff suffered monetary damages for not being paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The plaintiff holds C.M.C. Drywall Inc. and Murillo responsible because the defendants allegedly paid him regular wages instead of the proper overtime pay rate. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid overtime wages, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other general and equitable relief as the court deems equitable. He is represented by Roberto Luis Costales, William H. Beaumont and Emily A. Westermeier of Beaumont Costales LLC in New Orleans. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case number 2:17-cv-03469[GN] CABLE NEWS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in VPPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Forrest, Esq., of Covington & Burling LLP, in an article for In Perry v. Cable News Network, the Eleventh Circuit dealt another loss to putative class-action plaintiffs seeking to use the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") as a weapon against free online video services. The court affirmed that to be a "subscriber" of a video service -- someone who can sue under the VPPA -- one must have a genuine commitment, relationship, or association with that service. Because the Perry plaintiff could not show that, he lost. The VPPA creates a cause of action for video service providers that disclose their consumers' personally identifiable information alongside their viewing information. The typical Internet example is a paid video service that gives an advertiser a paying subscriber's email address and viewing history. To sue under the VPPA, a person must be a "consumer." The VPPA defines that term as meaning a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video service provider. "Subscriber" has raised the question of whether someone who downloads and uses a free app can be a "consumer" who can sue under the VPPA. At least in the Eleventh Circuit, Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc. answered that question: something more than mere use is needed. Instead, Ellis held that a proper VPPA plaintiff needs "some type of commitment, relationship, or association (financial or otherwise)" between the plaintiff and the video service provider. In Perry, the district court relied on Ellis to dismiss plaintiff Perry's suit without leave to amend because he was merely a user of CNN's free app. Perry argued he could state a VPPA claim because he subscribed to CNN's television channel through his cable package. This cable subscription let Perry access exclusive content via the CNN app. Perry said this made him a CNN app subscriber. He also said he paid CNN indirectly through his cable subscription. Perry appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on those theories. The Eleventh Circuit rejected Perry's arguments. It ruled that under Ellis, subscribers must have commitments, relationships, or associations with the video service provider itself. But as the court explained, Perry's relationship to CNN was not direct. He paid his cable company, not CNN, to be able to watch CNN on his TV. He did not even register an account on CNN's app. Nor did he give CNN any personal information like an email address, credit card number, or GPS location. Although he did log into the CNN app to view exclusive content, he did so using his cable provider credentials, not CNN credentials. At most he downloaded CNN's app and perhaps acknowledged that he had a cable TV subscription. Such conduct, the Eleventh Circuit concluded, was only "ephemeral investment and commitment" to CNN itself, nothing close to what being a "subscriber" demands under Ellis. The court also rejected Perry's argument that CNN's indirect receipt of money, through Perry's paying his cable provider, made Perry a CNN subscriber. As the court explained, this shed no light on Perry's commitment to CNN itself. For instance, if the cable provider removed CNN from its package, Perry could still use the app unimpeded. So the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Perry's complaint without leave to amend. Separately, CNN had argued that Perry had no standing to bring his case at all. It based this argument on the Supreme Court's holding in Spokeo v. Robbins: a bare procedural violation of a statute does not create standing because that violation may not cause, or present any risk of, harm to the plaintiff. But the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Perry had not just alleged a bare procedural violation of the VPPA. Rather, it ruled that violating a person's privacy interests -- like the right not to have personal information about video viewing disclosed -- is a harm even if it is intangible. Perry is another win for VPPA defendants. Even without a Spokeo bar to standing, the narrowing of the "subscriber" definition may make VPPA cases less palatable to the plaintiff's bar.[GN] CAPFUSION LLC: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capfusion, LLC; Ryan Sullivan; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:17-cv-00717 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2017), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Capfusion, LLC and Ryan Sullivan, in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on their cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Capfusion, LLC provides financial lending, and business consultation for companies. [BN] 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 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com EMILY CORP: Camp Drug Store Sues Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Camp Drug Store, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. Emily Corporation d/b/a DDP Medical Supply, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00397 (S.D. Ill., April 14, 2017) seeks to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant has sent advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the regulations the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), says the complaint. Emily Corporation wholesales medical and surgical instruments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: 312-658-5500 Fax: 312-658-5555 EXPRESS PAYROLL: "Medellin" Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Medellin, Benigno Aguilar, Eliazar Ochoa, and Rodolfo Olivares, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Payroll, Inc. Robert Wayne Hutto d/b/a A&W Services; Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. and Nabors Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01232 (S.D. Tex., April 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a land-based drilling rig fleet and provides related services to its customers in the oilfield industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 - and - Ross A. Sears, Esq. SEARS & CRAWFORD, LLP 1200 Rothwell Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-3333 Facsimile: (713) 223-3331 E-mail: ross@searscrawford.com CATALYST HEDGED: June 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff 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 June 27, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:HFXAX) (NASDAQ:HFXCX) (NASDAQ:HFXIX), if they purchased the Fund's Class A, C and I shares between November 1, 2014 and April 28, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Catalyst Fund 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 June 27, 2017. About the Lawsuit Certain of the Fund's executive officers and/or trustees and others are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but not limited to, that: (i) the Fund's prospectuses declared "[T]he Fund employs strict risk management procedures to adjust portfolio exposure as necessitated by changing market conditions"; (ii) despite converting from hedge fund to a more risk-limiting mutual fund, it continued to invest using a heightened risk strategy; and (iii) as a result, the Fund's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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. CNN: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------- Valerie Bolden-Barrett, writing for HR Drive, reports that CNN faces a class action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination by about 175 former and current employees, the New York Business Journal reports. The lawsuit follows similar allegations against Fox News and The New York Times. Lead plaintiffs Celeslie Henley, a CNN executive assistant, and Ernest Colbert Jr., a former manager at CNN affiliate Turner Broadcasting System, claim the media organization is "rife with racism" and "bigoted remarks," according to the Journal. The plaintiffs allege that the following is one example of the remarks made: "Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?" Henley and Colbert Jr. also claim that CNN paid them less than their white counterparts. Dive Insight: Allegations of racism and bigotry against news organizations, sadly, aren't new. The recent spate of high-profile lawsuits highlighted a longstanding issue for the industry. The National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) issued a statement on its website in reaction to allegations of racial discrimination against CNN competitor Fox News. "We've seen downsizing and layoffs in U.S. newsrooms that have had a disproportionate effect on the number of working black journalists," NABJ President Sarah Glover said in the statement. "No one working in the media industry today should be subjected to discriminatory practices. This has to end." HR should always be at the forefront of addressing systemic issues surrounding workplace diversity and discrimination issues. The recent CNN lawsuit includes allegations that go beyond hiring discrimination and detail claims of a workplace environment hostile to underrepresented groups. Accusations of bias, discrimination, racism and/or hostility must be taken seriously and investigated, lest media fall the way of the tech industry. Part of that self-examination includes reviewing hiring practices to eliminate bias. Are African-Americans, women and other under- represented groups being recruited for only entry-level or clerical jobs? Are they being developed for leadership roles? A workplace in which discriminatory behavior and discourse are tolerated could have financial as well as legal consequences for employers. Corporate sponsors of former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's show pulled their ads following sexual harassment allegations that ended in his termination. Employers should intervene when discriminatory claims arise and be mindful of the possible consequences if they don't. Even simple steps like taking names off of resumes have proven effective for addressing hiring bias in some cases. On the horizon, recruiting technology in the form of AI and machine learning could play a much bigger part in reducing bias. [GN] EPIC SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Extends Initial Briefs Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard M. Bloom, Esq. -- BloomH@jacksonlewis.com -- and Philip B. Rosen, Esq. -- RosenP@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that the Supreme Court extended the deadline for initial briefs from April 28, 2017 to June 9, 2017 in three consolidated cases raising the issue whether arbitration agreements between individual employees and their employers that bar the employees from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis are lawful under the National Labor Relations Act. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP, et al. v. Morris, et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 16-307. The Court granted the extension pursuant to a request by the Acting Solicitor General of the United States. Raising the possibility the government may decide to change its position on whether such agreements are unlawful, in his request, the Acting Solicitor General wrote, "[T]he current briefing schedule is no longer adequate for the government [because] . . . [t]he Acting Solicitor General is engaged in a process of reviewing the position of the United States in these cases" and that he "must . . . consult with new leadership within the government." [GN] FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in "Grimstad" Suit ----------------------------------------------- Judge Stuart M. Bernstein granted in part and denied in part, the motion filed by the defendant, FCA US LLC ("New Chrysler"), to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the adversary proceeding captioned LYNN GRIMSTAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, et al., Defendants, Adv. Pro. No. 16-01204 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs own vehicles that were manufactured and sold by the debtors, collectively Old Carco LLC. After New Chrysler, purchased Old Carco's assets and continued its operations, New Chrysler recalled the vehicles, attempted to fix a pre-existing glitch, but according to the plaintiffs, made the situation worse. The plaintiffs sued, and following the transfer of the lawsuit to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, New Chrysler moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint arguing that their claims were barred by the sale order issued by the Court on June 1, 2009. The crux of New Chrysler's argument is that the plaintiffs' claims are premised on the existence of a pre-sale manufacturing defect. The plaintiffs, however, argued that New Chrysler's fault lies not in its failure to fix a purported pre-existing defect, but in its disabling of features during the recall that were previously functioning in the vehicles. Judge Bernstein ruled that the First Amended Complaint is dismissed to the extent that it alleges that New Chrysler failed to fix a pre-sale defect in the vehicles, but is otherwise denied without prejudice to the parties' respective rights to raise the issues on whether the disabling of the four-wheel drive capability during the recall as alleged by the plaintiffs gave rise to an independent claim under non-bankruptcy law, or is barred by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A full-text copy of Judge Bernstein's April 28, 2017 memorandum decision is available at https://is.gd/Xf7dv8 from Leagle.com. The bankruptcy case is In re: OLD CARCO LLC, et al., Chapter 11, Debtors, Case No. 09-50002 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). Old Carco LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler LLC), Debtor, represented by Corinne Ball -- cball@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, John E. Berg -- jberg@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill PC, Lawrence V. Gelber -- lawrence.gelber@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Veerle Roovers -- veerle.roovers@davispolk.com -- Jones Day, Benjamin Rosenblum -- brosenblum@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Laurent Stephan Wiesel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. RJM I, LLC, as Liquidation Trustee for Old Carco Liquidation Trust, Liquidating Trustee, represented by Michael B. Solow -- michael.solow@apks.com -- Kaye Scholer LLP. Manuel Mara, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apollo, A.O.E. Law & Associates & Sedoo A. Manu -- sedoo@aoelaw.com -- A.O.E. Law & Associates. United States Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Andrew D. Velez-Rivera, Office of the U.S. Trustee. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Chrysler LLC, et al., Creditor Committee, represented by Philip Bentley -- pbentley@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Thomas Moers Mayer -- tmayer@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Gregory G. Plotko -- gplotko@rkollp.com - - Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP & Adam C. Rogoff -- arogoff@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee, represented by Peter D'Apice -- d'apice@sbep-law.com -- Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, P.C., Robert J. Feinstein -- rfeinstein@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP & Robert T. Schmidt -- rschmidt@kramerlaw.com -- Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP. FCA US: "Johnson" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777 ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Derek R. Johnson and Stonewall J. Webster III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00047, filed on March 28, 2017, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned 3:17-cv-02146-EMC to the proceeding. The Case is consolidated in multidistrict litigation no. 2777. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to the Honorable Edward M. Chen. The Defendants together with their subsidiaries, design, engineer, manufacture, distribute, and sell passenger cars, LCVs, components and productions systems in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ann Ritter, Esq. Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: aritter@motleyrice.com jrice@motleyrice.com - and - Archie I. Grubb, Esq. W. Daniel Miles III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. Eric B. Snyder, Esq. Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq. Katherine E. Charonko, Esq. BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-1386 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com esnyder@baileyglasser.com jboggs@baileyglasser.com kcharonko@baileyglasser.com - and - David S. Stellings, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: DSTELLINGS@lchb.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN Embaracadero Center West 29th Floor, 275 Battery St. San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com - and - James Gerard Stranch, Esq. Joe P. Leniski, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 250-3937 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com joeyl@bsjfirm.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Robyn R. English, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com renglish@bfalaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com FCA US: "Rivero" Class Suit Included in MDL 2777 ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Bret Rivero and Jamie Varnado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA U.S., LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00031, filed on January 12, 2017, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02144-EMC to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in multidistrict litigation no. 2777. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to the Honorable Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. The Defendants together with their subsidiaries, design, engineer, manufacture, distribute, and sell passenger cars, LCVs, components and productions systems in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Michaud, Esq. PATRICK MILLER LLC 400 Poydras Ave., Suite 1680 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 527-5400 E-mail: mmichaud@patrickmillerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Gary G. Hebert, Esq. MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD 601 Poydras Street, 12th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 596-2715 Facsimile: (504) 596-2861 E-mail: ghebert@mcglinchey.com FCA US: "Rothe" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777 --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Kirt Rothe and Catherine Plaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00032, filed on March 20, 2017, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned 3:17-cv-02143-EMC to the proceeding. The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation no. 2777. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to the Honorable Richard L. Bourgeois Jr. The Defendants together with their subsidiaries, design, engineer, manufacture, distribute, and sell passenger cars, LCVs, components and productions systems in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Hafemann, Esq. 21 W Park Avenue Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 226-6696 Facsimile: (843) 645-6530 E-mail: john@mja.law - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Diane Owens SWIFT, CURRIE, MCGHEE & HIERS, LLP 1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 874-8800 Facsimile: (404) 888-6199 E-mail: diane.owens@swiftcurrie.com FLINT, MI: Benesch Attorney Discusses Sixth Circuit Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Gilman, Esq. -- jgilman@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a statute, distilled to its essence, is thought conveyed through words. And when those words are understandable and coherently arranged, there's nothing for courts to do when adjudicating disputes involving them, other than to apply them as written. Simple, isn't it? In theory, yes. But theories don't wear judge's robes. Fast forward to Flint, Michigan, and the water crisis it's been enduring since 2014. Let's let the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals set the stage: "Prior to April 2014, Flint purchased treated water from the City of Detroit. Thereafter, the city began using the Flint River as its water source. The Flint River water was not treated with corrosion-inhibiting chemicals, and this led to a multitude of serious problems with the local water supply. Residents complained that the water was discolored and foul-smelling. There were reports of skin rashes, hair loss, and vomiting after drinking and bathing in the water. And most disturbingly, many children in Flint were found to have high levels of lead in their blood stream." Lawsuits followed, including a putative class action filed during July 2016 in a Michigan state court against one of the City of Flint's engineering firms and one of its consultants. The claims? Negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming that doing was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act -- CAFA, for short -- because the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the putative class consisted of at least 100 persons, and "minimal" geographic diversity between the parties existed (that is, at least one class member was a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant). Plaintiff did not dispute these facts, but contended that the case was not removable and should be bounced back to state court. Why? Because this case, it argued, was a "local controversy" under CAFA, and therefore not eligible for removal. A "local controversy" is one in which more than two-thirds of the would-be class members are citizens of the state in which the case was first filed, at least one significant defendant is a citizen of that same state, and the alleged injuries were incurred in that state. The district court sided with plaintiffs: this was, it held, a local controversy, so it entered an order shipping the case back to state court. But there was a catch. CAFA explicitly states that the local controversy exception to federal jurisdiction does not apply if, "during the 3-year period preceding the filing of [the] class action," another "class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons." In other words, if, during that three-year period, another similar class action had been filed against any of the defendants, the case can be removed to federal court -- even if it otherwise qualifies as a local controversy under CAFA. In fact, the statute's language is quite clear: a federal district court must decline jurisdiction over a local controversy class action if, "during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons." (Emphasis added.) What does that mean? It means that if any other class action based on analogous facts had been filed against any of the same defendants during that three-year period, the federal court can adjudicate that lawsuit. In fact, it must adjudicate the lawsuit if the other requirements for CAFA removal have been met. And therein, the catch: In the Flint case, no fewer than five similar class actions had been filed against the same defendants over the water crisis during 2015 and 2016 alone. If that's the case, shouldn't the federal court have held onto the lawsuit after it was removed from state court? One would think so. Then why didn't it do so? That's not entirely clear. Apparently, it considered this case so distinctly local -- so crisply confined to Flint, Michigan -- that it felt that the case really, truly belonged in state court. Quoting from the Sixth Circuit, "the district court acknowledged that other class actions had been filed in the previous three years but agreed with the plaintiffs that this case was a 'truly local controversy' and remanded the case to state court." Defendants believed otherwise. They appealed to the Sixth Circuit and argued that they properly removed the case to federal court under CAFA's clear and unambiguous language. And the Sixth Circuit agreed. It reversed the district court and essentially told that court that it had to handle the case. Its rationale? Exactly what you'd expect: "The plain language of CAFA offers a simple answer to our inquiry. The local controversy exception will apply only if no other similar class action was brought against any of the defendants in the instant action during the three years preceding the filing of this case . . . It is undisputed that five class actions were brought, each advancing very similar factual allegations[.] And each action sued at least one of the defendants currently in this suit. Applying the language of the exception to the facts before us, the local controversy exception cannot apply. The statutory language is clear and unambiguous. The federal court retains jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA." But what about the district court's belief that this really, truly was a local controversy? Let's let the Sixth Circuit answer that. "It is true that the injuries were suffered by Flint residents in Flint, Michigan. In the colloquial sense, then, the controversy is 'local.' However, it is not local in the way Congress contemplated in CAFA . . . The language of CAFA defines by its own terms what qualifies as a local controversy, and those requirements are not met in this case." In other words, the statute means what it says. The case is Davenport v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit, case no. 17-200, and the decision, issued April 25, 2017, can be found at https://goo.gl/87syk4 [GN] FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo Company, and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 17-00936, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01769-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Terry Dr. Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com FOUGERA PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, IUOE Local 30 Benefit Fund, and UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, Case No. 16-7229, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01753-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California St 14th Fl San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com dcg@girardgibbs.com eak@girardgibbs.com - and - Jordan Elias, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Peter George Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway 27th Fl New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com The Defendant Fougera Pharmceuticals, Inc. is represented by: Laura S. Shores, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com - and - Margaret A. Rogers, Esq. Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-7830 E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com saul.morgenstern@apks.com The Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., INC.is represented by: Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1036 Franklin River Forest, IL 60305 Telephone: (312) 862-2382 E-mail: douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.com - and - Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Joseph Serino Jr., Esq. Katherine A. Rocco, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4970 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com joseph.serino@kirkland.com katherine.rocco@kirkland.com The Defendant Perrigo Company PLC is represented by: Andrew S. Wellin, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6154 E-mail: andrew.wellin@morganlewis.com - and - J. Clayton Everett Jr., Esq. Scott A. Stempel, Esq. Tracey F. Milich, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 E-mail: jeverett@morganlewis.com SStempel@morganlewis.com tracey.milich@morganlewis.com The Defendant Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is represented by: David Neil Cinutti, Esq. VENABLE LLP 1270 Ave OF THE Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 370-6279 - and - James Douglas Baldridge, Esq. Lisa Jose Fales, Esq. VENABLE LLP 575 - 7th Street North West Washington, DC 20004-1601 Telephone: (202) 344-4703 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com ljfales@venable.com The Defendant WOCKHARDT USA LLC is represented by: Damon W. Suden, Esq. William A. Escobar, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 101 Park Ave 27th Fl New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 E-mail: dsuden@kelleydrye.com wescobar@kelleydrye.com The Movant NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund is represented by: David W. Mitchell, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: DavidM@rgrdlaw.com - and - Duane Louis Loft, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: dloft@bsfllp.com The Movant IUOE Local 30 Benefit Fund is represented by: Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Ave 14th Fl New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com The Movant UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com FOUGERA PHARMA: St. Paul Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis International AG, Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo New York, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-9530, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01762-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Eisler, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 123 Justison St Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Laura S. Shores, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com FOUGERA PHARMA: United Food Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Wockhardt USA LLC, Case No. 16-7979, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01754-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin N. Boley, Esq. Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe St Ste 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com kaw@wexlerwallace.com - and - Peter George Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway 27th Fl New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com The Defendant Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by: Laura S. Shores, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com - and - Margaret A. Rogers, Esq. Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-7830 E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com saul.morgenstern@apks.com The Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. is represented by: Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1036 Franklin River Forest, IL 60305 Telephone: (312) 862-2382 E-mail: douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.com - and - Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Joseph Serino Jr., Esq. Katherine A. Rocco, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4970 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com joseph.serino@kirkland.com katherine.rocco@kirkland.com The Defendant Perrigo Company PLC is represented by: Andrew S. Wellin, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6154 E-mail: andrew.wellin@morganlewis.com - and - J. Clayton Everett Jr., Esq. Scott A. Stempel, Esq. Tracey F. Milich, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 E-mail: jeverett@morganlewis.com SStempel@morganlewis.com tracey.milich@morganlewis.com The Defendant Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is represented by: David Neil Cinotti, Esq. VENABLE LLP 1270 Avenue of The Americas, 24th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 307-5500 E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com - and - James Douglas Baldridge, Esq. Lisa Jose Fales, Esq. VENABLE LLP 575 - 7th Street North West Washington, DC 20004-1601 Telephone: (202) 344-4703 Facsimile: (202) 344-8300 E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com ljfales@venable.com The Defendant Wockhardt USA LLC is represented by: Damon W. Suden, Esq. William A. Escobar, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 101 Park Ave 27th Fl New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 E-mail: dsuden@kelleydrye.com wescobar@kelleydrye.com LANNETT COMPANY: 1199SEIU Nat'l Fund Suit Transferred to Penn. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, Lannett Company, Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 16-09666, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for rhe Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01764-CMR to the proceeding. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan is New York City's largest municipal public employee union. Lannett Company, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develop, manufacture, market and distribute generic versions of branded pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan Patrick Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Michelle Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery St 29th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP 1904 Third Ave Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Sona Ramesh Shah, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com sshah@zsz.com The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by: Ryan T. Becker, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2700 Kelly Rd., ste. 300 Warrington, PA 18976 Telephone: (215) 345-7500 E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com The Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by: Chul Pak, Esq. Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC 1301 Ave of Americas 40th Fl. New York, NY 10019-6022 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com jbank@wsgr.com FOX NEWS: Reporter Files New Discrimination Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a Fox News contributor said in a lawsuit filed on May 1 that she was taken off the air after writing an article about a medical condition that would likely leave her infertile, in the latest of a series of discrimination claims against the network. Diana Falzone, 34, said in the lawsuit in New York state court that despite writing many popular articles for Fox News' website and routinely being praised for on-air appearances, she was abruptly sidelined in January, three days after the article about her struggle with endometriosis was published. Ms. Falzone said Fox, a unit of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc, discriminated against her on the basis of sex and disability in violation of New York City law. The network did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fox News has faced mounting legal claims that it ignored employees' complaints of sexual harassment and gender and race discrimination. Bill O'Reilly, the network's most popular anchor, and former Fox News chief Roger Ailes both have been ousted over harassment claims by several women, which they deny. In the May 1 lawsuit, Ms. Falzone said she was not given a reason for being taken off the air. She said she complained internally using an employee hotline, but did not bring her concerns to network executives because they had, for years, been "complicit in covering up and enabling a hostile and harassing environment for women at Fox News." "Once Diana disclosed her condition, Fox executives decided she no longer conformed to their image of on-air women as 'physically perfect,'" Nancy Smith, Ms. Falzone's attorney, said in a statement. Ms. Smith and Martin Hyman filed a sexual harassment lawsuit last year against Mr. Ailes on behalf of former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson. The lawsuit, which was settled for $20 million, led to Mr. Ailes' resignation after two decades as one of the most influential executives in cable television. Fox News anchor Kelly Wright, who is black, and several other non- white employees filed a lawsuit seeking class action status, claiming they were mocked and humiliated because of their race and paid less than white coworkers. Fox has denied the claims. Fox News announced on May 1 that Bill Shine, co-president of the network since August, has resigned. A Fox News contributor sued Shine last month, accusing the executive of failing to investigate her claims of sexual harassment. [GN] FOX NEWS: Reporter's Complaints are Baseless, Says News Firm ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that a former Fox News radio reporter has sued the network and its parent company, saying she was fired last month in "a blatant act of retaliation" for complaining about gender discrimination. 21st Century Fox said on May 4 that Jessica Golloher's complaints are baseless. A radio reporter based in Israel, Ms. Golloher said in a lawsuit that she had complained previously that her New York bosses treated her poorly in comparison to male counterparts. She said, for instance, that she was essentially forced to work as an assistant to a male colleague covering the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia. Ms. Golloher said she was fired within 24 hours after reaching out to a company hotline created in the wake of employee complaints. Two Fox News executives and anchor Bill O'Reilly have been ousted in recent months following accusations of harassment and racial discrimination at the leading cable news network. Fox contends that Ms. Golloher's contract wasn't renewed due to budget cuts and that the executive who informed her of the decision was unaware that she had reached out to the hotline, said an executive who spoke under condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to discuss personnel issues. "Jessica Golloher's claims are without merit," Fox said in a statement. "Her allegations of discrimination and retaliation are baseless. We will vigorously defend the matter." FOX NEWS: Pressure Over Abusive Workplace Unlikely to Go Away ------------------------------------------------------------- David Bauder, writing for The Associated Press, reports that stories about an abusive workplace at Fox News Channel aren't likely to go away even after claiming the jobs of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly and Bill Shine. The continued presence of other executives implicated in stories about harassment, discrimination and intimidation complicate Fox's ability to change its culture, both in practice and public perception. One of those executives was promoted with Fox's announcement on May 1 that Mr. Shine, Fox's co-president since founding CEO Roger Ailes was ousted last summer, had resigned. "There's a case to be made that the place is so toxic and radioactive and there's very little you can do unless you wipe out everybody and start fresh," said David Lewis, CEO of OperationsInc, a human resources provider based in Norwalk, Connecticut. Fox's parent 21st Century Fox is attempting the turnaround while trying to protect its greatest asset -- a thriving, profitable news network that's essential to its politically conservative fans and thus far unhurt by ugly stories about its Manhattan headquarters. The risk in a sudden, wholesale housecleaning is removing all of the people who know how to run it successfully. Fox News has maintained its status as the top-ranked cable news network despite the loss of Messrs. Ailes and O'Reilly, its top- rated prime-time star. Another Fox personality, Sean Hannity, assured fans he was staying despite his public support for Shine, a close colleague. Mr. Shine had been accused of looking the other way at behavior by Messrs. Ailes and O'Reilly, even retaliating against people who complained. Suzanne Scott, a 21-year Fox veteran who was promoted to president of programming on May 1, has been named in three lawsuits filed against Fox in recent months. Andrea Tantaros, a Fox personality who had accused Mr. Ailes of sexual harassment, said nothing had been done after she complained of his behavior to Ms. Scott. Similarly, news anchor Kelly Wright, who has accused Fox of discriminatory behavior, said Scott failed to address concerns he had expressed to her. Fox's Julie Roginsky said in her lawsuit that Ms. Scott tried to recruit her to disparage Gretchen Carlson, the anchor who was the first to accuse Mr. Ailes of sexual harassment. Ms. Scott said through a spokeswoman that she never asked women to back Mr. Ailes. Fox's chief counsel, Dianne Brandi, has also been mentioned several times by former and current Fox employees who had concerns about how they were treated. The lawsuit on racial discrimination, of which Ms. Wright is among 13 plaintiffs, talks about an atmosphere of hostility created by Judith Slater, Fox's since-fired comptroller. One of the plaintiffs, Monica Douglas, said she complained about Ms. Slater's behavior to Ms. Brandi and was told Ms. Slater would not be fired because "she knew too much" about the behavior of other Fox executives. Ms. Brandi has denied the accusations through a Fox spokeswoman, and Ms. Slater has disputed the characterizations of her behavior through a lawyer. In that lawsuit, Ms. Douglas said that Slater told her not to complain to the head of human resources at Fox, Denise Collins, because she was a good friend and would do nothing to help her. Ms. Collins remains at Fox, although the company appointed Kevin Lord, an executive from outside of Fox who worked at NBC and General Electric, as the new chief of human resources overseeing her. Another Fox News employee, Diana Falzone, sued the company saying that she was told that Fox executives ordered that she no longer appear on the air after she wrote an article in January for the Fox website detailing her battle with endometriosis. According to her complaint, "the male-dominated senior management at Fox News obviously objected to the fact that a female on-air host had disclosed she suffered from a women's reproductive health condition which, in their eyes, detracted from her sex appeal and made her less desirable." Ms. Falzone said that male Fox employees like Neil Cavuto and Bob Beckel faced no repercussions for publicly discussing their own health issues. Fox's public relations chief, Irena Briganti, was charged in Ms. Tantaros' lawsuit with turning Fox's PR operations against her when she complained about Mr. Ailes -- including the creation of false social media accounts from which she was criticized. Fox has denied the allegation. Nancy Erika Smith, lawyer for Ms. Carlson, Ms. Roginsky and Ms. Falzone, said that Shine's departure from Fox was an overdue positive step. "To begin to change the culture at Fox, there are others who have enabled and encouraged the sexism that should be next, starting with Dianne Brandi, Suzanne Scott and Irena Briganti," she said. Attorney Lisa Bloom, who has represented women in harassment complaints against Meessrs. Ailes and O'Reilly, also said Fox needed to take more action. "After decades of flouting the laws against sexual harassment and retaliation, if the network wants to redeem itself, it should fire all executives who were complicit in covering up for harassers and driving out women who complained," she said. The issue for Fox is in rebuilding trust among employees who feel that their concerns about the workplace had not been listened to, and that's difficult when some of the same executives are still there, said Lewis, the human resources expert. "People who were harassed are not going to feel safe," said Rob Wilson, president of Employco, a human resources provider based in Westmont, Illinois. Since his start in January, Fox said Lord has begun building a new human resources team, including new heads of recruiting and diversity and a Washington-based executive to head human resources in bureaus outside of New York. Fox has also hired a new chief financial officer, Amy Listerman, formerly CFO of Scripps Networks Interactive, who began work last week. 21st Century Fox had no comment on May 2. The company has, however, noted the speed in which investigations proceeded and action was taken against Messrs. Ailes and O'Reilly -- arguably the two most prominent figures at the network. In both cases, the allegations against the men dated back years, and the men remained with the company until recent media reports raised public pressure. Tom Vogel, a senior vice president for crisis communications at JConnelly in New York, said the Murdoch family that controls 21st Century Fox will probably face less investor tolerance for bad behavior than in the past. And nothing is more dangerous for them than a threat to the bottom line. "They may be dragged kicking and screaming, but Fox will eventually do the right thing," Mr. Vogel said. "However, the longer it takes to take definitive measures, the longer it will take to recover what they've lost." FU HING: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Li, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated v. Fu Hing Main Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Fuhing Chinese Restaurant, Man Chee Li and Jia Xing Chen, Case No. 1:17-cv-10670 (D. Mass., April 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant named Fuhing Chinese Restaurant located at 200 Main St, Haverhill, MA 01830. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard M. Brown, Esq. BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC 1170 Beacon St. Suite 200 Brookline, MA 02446 Telephone: (617) 566-8090 E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com - and - Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com FYRE MEDIA: Faces $100MM Fraud Class Action Over Fyre Festival -------------------------------------------------------------- Karma Allen and Joshua Hoyos, writing for ABC News, report that a $100 million proposed class-action lawsuit filed on April 30 accused the Fyre Festival and its organizers of fraud, alleging the music festival's "lack of adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care created a dangerous and panicked situation among attendees -- suddenly finding themselves stranded on a remote island without basic provisions." The suit, filed by Daniel Jung on behalf of himself and all festival attendees, claimed the festival, which was promoted as a supermodel-filled luxury concert event, was closer to ""The Hunger Games" or "Lord of the Flies" than Coachella." It seeks damages "in excess of" $100 million. Multiple concertgoers said they were left stranded on the private island of Fyre Cay over the weekend after officials placed the event site on lockdown because, according to the tourism ministry, Fyre organizers had allegedly failed to pay customs duty taxes on items imported for the event. Ticket packages for the now-postponed event reportedly sold for between $4,000 to as much as $100,000 per person, according to the suit and ticket purchasers. In a statement released on April 30, Jung's attorney, Mark Geragos, whose past clients include Michael Jackson and Chris Brown, said Fyre organizers "need to step up and make this right but unfortunately, the opposite has occurred." The suit slams organizers, claiming the festival "was nothing more than a get-rich-quick scam from the very beginning" and that they "intended to fleece attendees for hundreds of millions of dollars by inducing them to fly to a remote island without food, shelter or water -- and without regard to what might happen to them after that." The suit also alleges that concertgoers were left without money to pay for basic transportation, such as local taxis or buses because organizers told attendees to upload money to a wristband for use at the festival rather than bring any cash. Filed in the Central District of California, the suit asserts claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith, and negligent misrepresentation. It names the festival's creators -- rapper Ja Rule and tech entrepreneur Billy McFarland -- as well as the Delaware-based Fyre Media entity as defendants. The organizers did not immediately respond to ABC News's attempts to reach out for comment on the tourism ministry's statement and the lawsuit. GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Newspaper Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- Clare Howard, writing for Community Word, reports that a settlement was reached in a class action lawsuit against GateHouse Media by Massachusetts newspaper subscribers over special surcharges billed for "premium edition" sections inserted into the regular newspaper. Plaintiffs charged that GateHouse failed to properly disclose specific surcharges tagged onto regular newspaper subscriptions. GateHouse Media owns the Journal Star which also publishes "premium edition" sections and does not bill separately for a regular subscription and the charge for "premium edition" sections. According to the Massachusetts lawsuit, GateHouse Media allegedly charged customers $2 per issue for the "premium edition" but rather than clearly billing them for the supplement or allowing them to decline the supplement, the newspaper simply shortened the subscription period for which customers had paid. GateHouse Media disputes the allegations made in the Massachusetts lawsuit and is not required to admit any liability under the settlement of the class action. The settlement covers all people in Massachusetts who, between April 1, 2014, and March 21, 2017, purchased a subscription to a GateHouse Media publication and received one or more "premium edition" publications. Additionally, these subscribers were not billed separately for the "premium edition" but had the expiration date of their newspaper subscription shortened to cover the cost of the "premium edition." In another case, the Des Moines Water Works sued the drainage districts of three northwestern Iowa counties over high levels of nitrates contaminating Raccoon River, the source of drinking water for 500,000 central Iowa customers. Farmers who do not follow organic, sustainable practices add nitrogen fertilizer to their fields. Nitrates run off in rainwater and contaminate ditches, streams and rivers, ultimately resulting in the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The Des Moines Water Works has to pay $1.5 million a year to reduce nitrate levels in water in order to make it safe to drink. The lawsuit was long, bitter, costly and secretive. It was not clear who was paying the litigation fees on behalf of the three counties named in the lawsuit, a cost estimated at more than $1 million for one county alone. The answer was finally unearthed by a small twice-weekly publication, the Storm Lake Times, circulation 3,000. The answer earned the paper a Pulitzer Prize. In announcing the prize several weeks ago, the Pulitzer board said the paper's tenacious reporting "successfully challenged the powerful corporate agriculture interests in Iowa." The newspaper reported the secret funder of the defendants was the Iowa Farm Bureau and the Iowa Corn Growers. A federal judge has since dismissed the lawsuit contending water quality is an issue for the Iowa legislature, not the Des Moines Water Works. A bill is in the Iowa legislature seeking to dismantle the independent board of the Des Moines Water Works that filed the lawsuit. In Peoria, Illinois American Water Company must remove atrazine, a weed killer, from drinking water. Atrazine is applied on industrial corn fields throughout central Illinois. Like nitrogen, atrazine runs off farm fields and contaminates streams, rivers and lakes. A class action lawsuit over atrazine in municipal drinking water was litigated for more than a decade against the manufacturer, Syngenta. In an out-of-court settlement, Syngenta agreed to pay more than $105 million to municipal water systems that must incur the cost of removing the weed killer from drinking water. Atrazine was banned in the European Union more than a decade ago but is still widely used in the United States. Syngenta was recently purchased for $43 billion by China National Chemical Corp. Neither the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit nor the Syngenta class action lawsuit resulted in the elimination of toxic farm chemicals running off farm fields and ending up in public drinking water. GERON CORP: July 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Announces a Proposed Class Action Settlement Involving All Persons who Purchased or Acquired Geron Common Stock between December 10, 2012 and March 11, 2014 TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF GERON CORPORATION ("GERON") FROM DECEMBER 10, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 11, 2014 ("CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will be held on July 21, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, at the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 6-17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Action for the principal amount of $6,250,000 for the Class should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund, less Litigation Expenses, and an award to the Class Representative not to exceed $10,000, and expenses not to exceed $200,000 should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED GERON COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 10, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 11, 2014, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. You may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Settlement Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form by writing to Geron Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4153, Portland, OR 97208-4153, visiting the website www.GeronCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com, e-mailing the Claims Administrator at questions@GeronCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com, or calling the Claims Administrator toll free at 1-844-299-2263. Inquiries other than requests for the above-referenced documents may also be made to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel: Richard W. Gonnello FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no later than July 11, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. NOTE THAT NO CLAIMS LESS THAN $10.00 WILL BE PROCESSED OR PAID. If you purchased or otherwise acquired GERON common stock (GERN) and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than June 26, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Settlement Notice referred to above. All Class Members who do not timely and validly request exclusions from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California at the address below and received no later than June 26, 2017: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36060 San Francisco, CA 94102 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above. DATED: April 7, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA URL: www.GeronCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com[GN] GERON CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of holders of Astoria Financial Corporation ("Astoria") (NYSE:AF) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Astoria by Sterling Bancorp ("Sterling") announced on March 7, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Astoria, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Sterling, is captioned Parshall v. Astoria Financial Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-02165 (E.D.N.Y.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On March 6, 2017, Astoria entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sterling. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Astoria will receive 0.875 shares of Sterling common stock for each share of Astoria stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which recommends that Astoria stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to Astoria's financial projections, the analyses performed by Astoria's financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Astoria common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 30, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN] HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Bail System Unconstitutional, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Meagan Flynn, writing for Houston Press, reports that almost exactly 13 months ago, before civil rights groups sued Harris County over its bail system, 46-year-old Patrick Brown was booked into the Harris County jail, accused of stealing a guitar. He could not afford the $3,000 bail to buy his way out. And, as for the vast majority of misdemeanor defendants in Harris County, a bail hearing officer denied him a personal bond -- even though Brown had no violent criminal history. Less than a day later, he was beaten to death in a holding cell. It is without a doubt that Mr. Brown's case is the most tragic representation of the inherent inequality of a bail system allowing defendants with money to go free within hours of their arrest while those without languish in jail until trial -- possibly losing their jobs, their homes, their scholarships and, in rare cases, their lives. But after a federal judge's landmark ruling on April 28, it is possible, if the ruling stands, that this practice may be coming to an end in Harris County once and for all. The scathing, 193-page ruling issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal finds that Harris County's bail system violates the constitutional rights of poor, misdemeanor defendants. For many in the criminal justice community, that has been clear for decades -- yet until now has "escaped any real scrutiny" from federal courts, said lead plaintiffs' attorney Alec Karakatsanis of Civil Rights Corps. On April 28, Judge Rosenthal granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and ordered sweeping changes to the misdemeanor bail system, ensuring that no low-level poor person will be stuck in jail just because he or she can't pay to get out. Under the preliminary injunction -- which temporarily blocks Harris County's current system -- Judge Rosenthal has ordered that all misdemeanor defendants be released on a personal bond within 24 hours after their arrest, if they haven't already bailed out, and if they aren't subject to other holds. Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, who has long supported bail reform, called the ruling a "watershed moment in Harris County criminal-justice history." "[Poor people] have faced detention, sometimes for months, in maximum-security facilities such as the Harris County Jail, when in some instances, their offenses don't even warrant jail time upon conviction," Mr. Ogg said. "We welcome this ruling and will comply fully with it." Judge Rosenthal granted class-action status to all indigent misdemeanor defendants, represented by the Civil Rights Corps, Texas Fair Defense Project and Houston law firm Susman Godrey, which all worked pro bono. The county, meanwhile, has spent more than $2 million in taxpayer dollars hiring three private law firms on the case. That includes a recently hired appellate attorney, Charles Cooper -- at one time Donald Trump's frontrunner for solicitor general -- who will assist the county in deciding whether to appeal Rosenthal's ruling. In making the case against Harris County, Judge Rosenthal didn't just dismantle the entire foundation of secured money bail -- that is, forcing people to pay some arbitrary sum before being released from jail. She also dismantled the baseless defenses Harris County officials have used to justify the system for decades, at one point saying county policymakers are "apparently unaware of important facts about the bail-bond system in Harris County." What follows is a close look at Judge Rosenthal's most compelling findings. 1. "In Harris County, secured money bail is not just a de facto pretrial detention order; it is literally a pretrial detention order." -- Judge Rosenthal, page 94 This statement encompasses the basis of Judge Rosenthal's ruling. It's key to note that in no way is Judge Rosenthal saying that money bail for misdemeanor defendants is illegal in general. The problem in Harris County is how judges impose it. Mainly, Rosenthal found: They don't consider people's ability to pay, as the Constitution requires. Harris County Chief Public Defender Alex Bunin said that this specific finding -- and the 193 pages supporting it -- is what makes Judge Rosenthal's ruling historic. For what appears to be the first time, he said, a federal judge has ruled that imposing too-high bail amounts on poor, low-level defendants -- without considering whether they can pay it -- amounts to a detention order for those people, which is illegal. As Judge Rosenthal notes, since the 13th century, bail has only been legal because it is supposed to be a mechanism for people's release -- not an excuse to continue detaining them. "The principles that she's using are not new," Mr. Bunin said, "but no one has ever decided a contested class-action case based on how a bail schedule is applied to misdemeanor cases." Judge Rosenthal pointed to data showing that bail hearing officers stuck to the bail schedule in 88.9 percent of misdemeanor cases from 2015 through January 2017 as evidence that they can't possibly be making case-by-case considerations in setting bail. During that time, 40 percent of misdemeanor defendants remained incarcerated until their cases were disposed, and only 9.7 percent were released on personal bonds. Every day, more than 100 people remain in the Harris County Jail because they can't pay a bondsman even 10 percent of their bail amount. 2. County judges are defending a secured money bail system without any proof that it's more effective than releasing people on personal bonds. As it turns out, there isn't any credible research the county could point to proving that people have more incentive to show up for court if forced to pay a monetary sum upfront, compared to if they are released on a personal bond. Because in both cases, if the person fails to show up, he or she is still on the hook for the full bail amount. What difference does it really make, then, if the person must first pay a non-refundable, 10 percent premium of the bail amount to a bondsman in order to get out? Judge Rosenthal found, based on available research, that the answer is slim to none. In one of the most compelling passages of the ruling, she rebuked county officials for holding fast to their belief about the effectiveness of their money bail system without having the evidence to back it up. "The court finds and concludes that the Harris County policymakers . . . have no adequate or reasonable basis for their belief that for misdemeanor defendants, release on secured money bail provides incentives for, or produces, better pretrial behavior than release on [personal bonds]. The policymakers are apparently unaware of important facts about the bail-bond system in Harris County, yet they have devised and implemented bail practices and customs, having the force of policy, with no inquiry into whether the bail policy is a reasonable way to achieve the goals of assuring appearance at trial or law-abiding behavior before trial." The county paid an expert, who had some ties to the American Bail Coalition, more than $13,000 to try to prove a secured money bail system was the more effective system -- but Judge Rosenthal called his research "critically flawed" and said his conclusions are "not entitled to any weight." In perhaps their flimsiest argument, lawyers for Harris County also claimed that family and friends who can post bond on behalf of a poor defendant -- calling them "co-indemnitors" -- provide more incentive for people to appear in court. Rosenthal rejected that argument in this one sentence: "On that basis, the homeless and the friendless are denied release on personal bond because they lack co-indemnitors." 3. The county's current bail reforms won't stop the county from violating poor people's rights. The county was hit with this lawsuit just as it was unveiling reforms to the bail system -- and therefore argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed or delayed because the reforms address all the plaintiffs' concerns. The plaintiffs, and Judge Rosenthal, disagreed. The reforms are, without a doubt, commendable. Starting in July, defendants will have public defenders representing them at bail hearings to advocate for personal bonds. A new, objective risk assessment tool will help bail hearing officers decide who should be released on a personal bond and who poses a flight risk. And for the first time in roughly 40 years, the county is revising the bail schedule itself. But as Judge Rosenthal noted, because the county's system will still revolve around upfront secured money bail, none of these reforms guarantee that the rights of poor people will be protected. This is why: On a regular basis, Rosenthal notes, hearing officers and county judges are well aware that people charged with crimes of poverty -- petty theft, trespassing, begging -- are assigned bails that are obviously out of reach, resulting in their automatic detention. The judges know there is an "unwritten custom" to deny all homeless people personal bonds because of a perceived risk that they'll not come to court. They know that hearing officers deviate from the bail schedule only 10 percent of the time and that, for whatever reason, they ignore Pretrial Services recommendations for personal bonds two-thirds of the time. And yet, "The County Judges testified that they could change these customs and practices legislatively in their Rules of Court, but that they choose not to." That is exactly why county officials such as County Judge Darrell Jordan and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez -- the only defendants who actually support the plaintiffs -- and County Commissioner Rodney Ellis believe that without a federal court's intervention, true change will not occur. Chief Public Defender Bunin said he is hopeful that the county at least gives Rosenthal's ordered changes -- requiring all eligible defendants to be released within 24 hours of arrest -- a chance. She was in no position, Bunin said, to take the county at its word that all the reforms, though commendable, would resolve the plaintiffs' constitutional concerns. "She had to do something to make sure that the principles would be honored," he said. "Her solution is very simple and fair, in that poor people don't have to put money up front if they don't have it." For too many in the Harris County criminal justice community, this solution has been self-evident for years. For Patrick Brown, it would have been lifesaving. [GN] HERTZ: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge has once again dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Hertz Global Holdings by its shareholders -- this time with prejudice -- finding no evidence to demonstrate the company knowingly hid financial problems in order to boost the price of its stock. U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey dismissed the suit in a 53-page decision issued April 27. The lawsuit, seeking relief on behalf of a class of Hertz shareholders, was filed in 2013 by the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local No. 80 Pension Fund and the Westchester Teamsters Pension Fund. After the lawsuit was originally dismissed by U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler, also sitting in the District of New Jersey, the plaintiffs refiled, and Arleo dismissed the amended complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show that Hertz and several of its top officials acted knowingly or purposefully. Once again, the plaintiffs repleaded -- alleging primarily the same facts, Judge Arleo said. "This is plaintiffs' third bite at the apple," Judge Arleo said in her latest ruling, adding that the plaintiffs failed to allege scienter. "The [amended complaint] continues to suffer from some of the same infirmities with respect to particularity and scienter and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they could plead any additional facts that would cure these defects," Judge Arleo said. Hertz's attorney, Kevin Marino of Chatham's Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, said in a statement: "Hertz is very pleased with the court's thoughtful and comprehensive resolution of this case." The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Peter Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, was away from his office and unavailable for comment. The suit claimed the company covered up an overvaluation of certain cars in its rental fleet and failed to disclose "overfleeting," or maintaining excess car inventory amid a weak market for used cars. The suit also claimed that the company's 2013 earnings guidance failed to consider the expected impact on earnings caused by the sequester -- a series of federal budget cuts adopted that year that resulted in a drop in air travel. The eventual disclosure of the overvaluation, overfleeting and sequester issues in September 2013 caused the company's share price to drop 16 percent, the plaintiffs claimed. The suit accused Hertz of violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and two of its officers of violating Section 20(a) of the act. Stating a claim under 10(b) requires: a material misrepresentation or omission; scienter; a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and purchase or sale of a security; reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; economic loss; and causation. [GN] HOME CITY: May 17 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- David Baker, writing for 3TV/CBS 5, reports that those who bought packaged ice could be eligible for some cash as a part of a class action lawsuit settlement. If you purchased packaged ice from a supermarket, grocery store or other retailer and the ice was made by The Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Inc., Arctic Glacier International Inc., Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Reddy Ice Corporation, Reddy Ice Holdings Inc., or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates between Jan. 1, 2001 and Mar. 6, 2008, you may be entitled to benefits from the class action settlement. Home City denied it did anything wrong but agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle the packaged ice class action lawsuit. The potential reward is up to $12 with no proof of purchase. It's $6 for one to six bags or blocks of packaged ice. It's $12 for those claiming seven or more bags or blocks of packaged ice. Those who submit claims with proof of purchase for more than 12 packages of ice are eligible to receive a payment of $12 for 12 bags of ice, plus $2 for each additional package of ice You must file a claim by May 17. [GN] HONDA: Malaysian Family Files Suit in US Over Air Bag Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ Eileen Ng, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Malaysian man whose wife's death is one of at least 16 blamed on air bag defects has sued Japanese automaker Honda and the Takata Corp. in a U.S. court, saying he wants the companies to disclose more about the dangers. Nida Fatin Mat Asis, a 29-year-old doctor, died almost instantly after the Honda City she was driving hit a pole and skidded into a ditch in Malaysia's eastern Sabah state on April 16 last year. An autopsy found shrapnel from a Takata air bag inflator in the base of her skull. The lawsuit was filed by her husband in a U.S. District court in Michigan on May 1. Her father, Mat Asis Mahnoon, said on May 3 the family decided to sue after Takata pleaded guilty to fraud in February and agreed to pay $1 billion in penalties for concealing the defect blamed for 11 deaths in the U.S. and five in Malaysia. More than 180 injuries have occurred worldwide and more than 100 million inflators have been recalled. Plaintiffs alleged in dozens of lawsuits that Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford and BMW had independent knowledge that Takata's air bags were unsafe before putting them in millions of vehicles. The auto companies have asserted that they were deceived by Takata and shouldn't be held liable. Mat Asis told the Associated Press that the family refused a settlement offer from Honda and Takata that was conditioned on them not speaking publicly. The woman's husband says her family wants to ensure the companies do more. "I refuse to let my wife die in vain. By telling her story, we hope Takata and Honda will do more, particularly in Malaysia, to notify everyone with impacted cars that they are potentially deadly," Abdullah Shamshir Abdul Mokti said in a statement released by U.S. law firm Motley Rice LLC. The couple did not know their car had a dangerously defective air bag and were never notified by Honda of a potential recall. The law firm's statement said a confidential settlement had been reached with the two companies over another Honda City crash in Malaysia. That crash killed Law Suk Leh and her unborn baby. HUAWEI DEVICE: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Smartphone ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi, Colton Winfield and Edward Beheler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Google, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02185- HRL (N.D. Cal., April 19, 2017), is brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased Google Nexus 6P smartphones with defective battery capabilities that are prone to enter an endless bootloop cycle which renders them unresponsive and unusable, and severe battery drainage which causes Class Phones to stop working prematurely. Huawei Device USA, Inc. operates an information and communications technology company located at 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 500 Plano, Collin County, Texas 75024. Google, Inc. operates a technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory S. Fein, Esq. CORY FEIN LAW FIRM 712 Main St., #800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Jessica L. Titler, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com jlt@chimicles.com HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: "Gorbatchev" Sues for Defective Nexus Phones ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Gorbatchev, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. and Google, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex., April 14, 2017) seeks redress for Defendants' breach of express and implied warranties. The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated consumers who purchased Google Nexus 6P smartphones (the "Phones" or "Class Phones"). The complaint says the Class Phones are defective because they are prone to (i) enter an endless bootloop cycle which renders the phones unresponsive and unusable (the "Bootloop Defect") and (ii) severe and premature battery drainage (the "Battery Drain Defect"). Despite the fact that Defendants know of or are on notice of the issues in Class Phones, they failed to disclose the issues manifest in the Class Phones, and fail to provide an adequate remedy, says the Plaintiff. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. provides information and communications technology solutions and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory S. Fein, Esq. Cory Fein Law Firm 712 Main St., #800 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (281) 254-7717 Fax: (530) 748-0601 Email: cory@coryfeinlaw.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Jessica L. Titler, Esq. Chimicles & Tickellis LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Tel: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com jlt@chimicles.com IDAHO: Dismissal of "Tucker" Suit Partly Affirmed ------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, January 2017 Term affirmed in part and reversed in part, the district court's dismissal of the complaint in the case captioned TRACY TUCKER, JASON SHARP, NAOMI MORLEY, JEREMY PAYNE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE OF IDAHO; C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, in his official capacity as Governor of Idaho; HON. LINDA COPPLE TROUT, DARRELL G. BOLZ, SARA B. THOMAS, WILLIAM H. WELLMAN, KIMBER RICKS, SEN. CHUCK WINDER, and REP. CHRISTY PERRY, in their official capacities as members of the Idaho State Public Defense Commission, Defendants-Respondents, Docket No. 43922, 2017 Opinion No. 38 (Idaho). The appeal was brought from the Ada County District Court by Tracy Tucker, Jason Sharp, Naomi Morley, and Jeremy Payne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The appellants constituted a putative class of criminal defendants seeking to challenge Idaho's public defense system. On June 17, 2015, the appellants filed a class action complaint in which they alleged Idaho's public defense system is inadequate under federal and state constitutional standards. The appellants alleged Idaho's public defense system violates the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. As defendants, the appellants named: (1) the State of Idaho; (2) Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, in his official capacity; and (3) the seven members of the Idaho Public Defense Commission (PDC), in their official capacities. http://www.leagle.com/decision/InIDCO 20170501448/TUCKER v. STATE - fid1 The appellants sought various forms of equitable relief, including a declaration that Idaho's public defense system is unconstitutional and an injunction requiring the respondents to bring Idaho's public defense system into constitutional compliance. The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the case was not justiciable because the appellants did not sue the proper defendants. Since the provision of public defense has been delegated to Idaho's 44 counties under Idaho Code section 19-859, the respondents maintained that the appellants erred by not suing the counties. The appellants countered that the State is ultimately responsible for ensuring constitutionally adequate public defense, contending they had sued the proper defendants. The district court held that the appellants' claims were not justiciable and dismissed their complaint on standing, ripeness, and separation of powers grounds. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the dismissal of appellants' complaint as to the State of Idaho and the PDC, but affirmed the dismissal as to Governor Otter. The Supreme Court held that the State's sovereign immunity is inapplicable when constitutional violations are alleged. The Court also found that causation as to the State is met because the appellants' alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the State. Further, the Supreme Court found that because the appellants' requested relief, if ordered against the State, would create a substantial likelihood of redressing the appellants' injuries, redressability as to the State is satisfied. The respondents did not contest that ripeness is met as to the State. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the appellants' claims against the State are ripe. As to Governor Otter, the Supreme Court held that the governor's general duty to enforce state law does not establish causation. Accordingly, the Court found that the appellants did not satisfy causation as to Governor Otter. The Supreme Court, howerver, held that causation as to the PDC is met because of its duty to promulgate rules governing training and caseload reporting requirements. The Court explained that the PDC's failure to promulgate these rules illustrates that the appellants' injuries are fairly traceable to the PDC. The Court also found that redressability as to the PDC is satisfied, and that the appellants' claims against the PDC are ripe. The final basis of the district court's order is the separation of powers doctrine. The Supreme Court found that the appellants' claims do not implicate the separation of powers doctrine. "Merely that it is possible that Idaho's three branches of government may collaborate when deciding how to ensure our public defense system passes constitutional muster does not raise separation of powers concerns," the Supreme Court said. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Court did not award attorney fees or costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's April 28, 2017 decision is available at https://is.gd/vVLhu3 from Leagle.com. Appellants are represented by: Richard Alan Eppink, Esq. Jason D. Williamson, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212)549-2500 Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, Trout, Bolz, Ricks, Winder and Perry are represented by: Lawrence G. Wasden, Esq. Michael S. Gilmore, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 700 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 210 Boise, ID 83720-0010 Thomas and Wellman are represented by: Daniel J. Skinner, Esq. CANTRILL, SKINNER, LEWIS, CASEY & SORENSEN, LLP 1423 Tyrell Lane Boise, ID 83701 Tel: (208)344-8035 Fax: (208)345-7212 Email: danskinner@cssklaw.com IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Popper LLP on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (NYSE MKT:IMUC), certain of its former and current officers, and other individuals and entities, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (2:17-cv-03250), on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired ImmunoCellular common stock on the open market, during the period May 1, 2012 through December 11, 2013, and were damaged thereby. This action alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later than June 30, 2017 to be appointed lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Investors who purchased ImmunoCellular common stock during the Class Period and suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights. ImmunoCellular is a development stage company, and its lead product candidate, ICT-107, is a dendritic cell-based vaccine targeting multiple tumor associated antigens for glioblastoma multiforme. The Complaint charges that prior to and throughout the Class Period, defendants developed a scheme to manipulate and artificially inflate the stock price of ImmunoCellular. By virtue of this scheme, the market was conditioned to believe that ImmunoCellular's clinical studies for ICT-107 were going well as the placement of these fraudulent media reports were often timed to coincide with ImmunoCellular's announcements of ICT-107, so to have maximum impact upon ImmunoCellular's share price. Unbeknownst to the market, beginning in September 2011, ImmunoCellular hired Lidingo Holdings, LLC, a stock promotional firm to pump up the value of ImmunoCellular stock. This endeavor included a campaign of planting phony analyst reports and news articles that fawned over ImmunoCellular. In many cases, these phony media reports were written under aliases, and failed to reveal that ImmunoCellular had complete editorial control over their work. On December 11, 2013, ImmunoCellular revealed that the primary endpoint for its ICT-107 Phase II study "did not reach statistical significance" because it failed to increase overall survival in patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme. As a result, ImmunoCellular stock declined nearly 60%, to close at $1.10 per share on December 12, 2013. On April 10, 2017, as part of an SEC proceeding, ImmunoCellular's former CEO, Manish Singh acknowledged that he participated "in a paid stock-touting scheme" where he "edited and approved articles, directed which writers should publish articles and directed when and where those articles should be published." Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors. The firm's reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in securities litigation. For more information, please contact: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Tel.: 877.370.7703 Fax: 877.370.7704 Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com website: www.wolfpopper.com [GN] IRS PAINTERS: "Chacon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Edwin Chacon, on behalf of himself, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRS Painters Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01182 (S.D. Tex, April 15, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime pay pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to perform all necessary work to include the performance of those duties otherwise typically performed by "hourly" employees which routinely required Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work "overtime" and "off-the-clock" hours for which they failed to receive overtime compensation as required by law. Plaintiff Edwin Chacon worked as a Painter. IRS Painters, Inc. is in the Painting and Paper Hanging business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. The Foley Law Firm 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Tel: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $110.5MM in Talc Powder Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Linda A. Johnson and Heather Hollingsworth, writing for The Associated Press, report that Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the fourth time over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene. On May 4, a St. Louis jury awarded $110.5 million to Lois Slemp, 62, of Wise, Virginia, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She blames her illness on her use of the company's talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years. Besides Ms. Slemp's case, three other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes last year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. The company says its product is safe, and it plans to appeal the latest verdict, as it has the other three. Johnson & Johnson also has had some legal victories, including in March when a St. Louis jury rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer. Also, two cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs' lawyers hadn't presented reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer. The next baby powder trial is in June in St. Louis, and will be followed by another in July in California. WHAT DO INVESTORS THINK? Investors don't seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 62 cents to $123.10 in late-afternoon trading on May 5. Johnson & Johnson, the world's biggest maker of health care products, brings in about $72 billion a year selling prescription drugs, medical devices, diagnostic equipment and consumer products ranging from baby shampoo and Aveeno skin care items to Tylenol pain reliever and Band-Aids. Because of its size and diversified product lines, J&J is sued frequently and investors don't panic when it loses product liability lawsuits, so its stock price rarely drops much after losses. Also, the company clearly intends to keep fighting lawsuits alleging its iconic baby powder isn't safe, rather than settling suits at this point. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a white powder. It's been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder was launched. But it's mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there's no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn't use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it's relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,400 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection -- a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn't mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there's no proof talc, which doesn't interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June 2016 that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women's Health Initiative and the Nurses' Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women's health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. "Lord knows, with the amount of powder that's been applied to babies' bottoms, we would've seen something," if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute's Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency's position is that there's not a clear connection. "It is very hard to establish causal relationships," he said, adding, "A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer." On its website the American Cancer Society states: "The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small." KENMORE: Settles Consumers' Barbecue Grill Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- WTVF reports that have you spent money on bagged ice, barbecue grills or weight loss supplements recently? You could be seeing some of that money come back into your pockets. Bagged Ice A recent settlement in a class action lawsuit against makers of bagged ice could get you some money back. If you purchased bagged ice between 2001 and 2008, you could claim up to $12 with no proof of purchase and more if you can present receipts. The lawsuit alleged that companies who produced the ice colluded to keep prices up, though the makers claimed they have participated in no wrongdoing. The deadline to file claims is May 17, 2017. Kenmore Barbecue Grills A settlement in a lawsuit against Kenmore Barbecue Grills sold at Sears department stores includes 15 models that allegedly have fireboxes that could rust. The rusting would expose the propane tanks on the grills. Grills purchased between 2011 and 2014 could earn consumers $300 back depending on repairs and/or replacements made to the product. The manufacturer in the lawsuit claimed no wrongdoing. The deadline to file claims in this suit is January 26, 2018. Hydroxycut Supplements A settlement against the makers of Hydroxycut weight loss supplements found that weight loss may not be as advertised from the product, naming about three dozen supplements that failed to work as represented. Supplements purchased between 2009 and February 2017 could grant consumers full refunds with receipts and up to $28 without proof of purchase. The makers of the supplements claimed no wrongdoing. The deadline to file claims against Hydroxycut is May 30, 2017. [GN] LANNETT COMPANY: American Fed. Fund Suit Transferred to Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned American Federation of State County And Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 17-00643, was removed on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court Southern District Of New York to the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01768-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by: Gerald E. Arth, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP 2000 Market St., 10th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291 Telephone: (215) 299-2000 Facsimile: (215) 299-2150 E-mail: garth@foxrothschild.com - and - Ryan Thomas Becker, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Stone Manor Corp Center 2700 Kelly Road Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 18976 Telephone: (215) 345-7500 E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com The Defendant Mylan Inc.is represented by: Chul Pak, Esq. Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq. Michael S. Sommer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 497-7728 E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com jbank@wsgr.com msommer@wsgr.com LANNETT COMPANY: Plumbers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan v. Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 16- 09890, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District Of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01766-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund and the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN are pro se plaintiffs. The Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund is represented by: Scott Allan Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 165 Broadway, Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 357-1195 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by: Ryan Thomas Becker, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Stone Manor Corp Center 2700 Kelly Road Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 18976 Telephone: (215) 345-7500 E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com The Defendant Mylan Inc.is represented by: Chul Pak, Esq. Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 497-7728 E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com jbank@wsgr.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00301-REP (E.D. Va., April 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Solutions, Inc. provides data, analytics, and technology solutions to help customers across industry and government to assess, predict, and manage risk. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ AMRA KUC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., Manish Singh, Michael Handelman and Elma Hawkins, Case No. 3:17-cv-02188 (N.D. Cal., April 19, 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. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Lion, through the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, Manish Singh, engaged in a scheme to mislead investors by commissioning over 10 internet publications and 20 widely distributed emails promoting Lion to potential investors that purported to be independent from the Company when, in fact, they were paid promotions; (ii) the Defendant Singh engaged a notorious stock promotion firm to pay writers to publish articles about Lion on investment websites as well as to coordinate the distribution of articles to thousands of electronic mailboxes; (iii) the Defendant Singh actively participated in Lidingo's promotional work for Lion and understood that Lidingo was using writers who would not disclose that Lion was indirectly compensating them for their publications; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Lion's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on developing and commercializing cancer immunotherapy products to harness the power of a patient's immune system to eradicate cancer cells. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com LULAROE: Takes Steps to Rectify Defective Leggings Issue -------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Layton Turner, writing for Forbes.com, reports that after months of customers complaining about how easily clothier LuLaRoe's buttery soft leggings tear and the filing of a class action lawsuit on March 23, 2017, alleging "defective leggings and other clothing," LuLaRoe is taking steps to rectify the situation and bolster its reputation. LuLaRoe is a multi-level marketing company that designs, manufactures, and distributes colorful knit clothing for women and girls through its network of sales representatives, called fashion consultants. The company has been growing exponentially and reportedly hit $1 billion in sales in 2016, after only four years in business. That pace of growth has brought on some challenges, including complaints about product quality. Class Action Lawsuit Brings Situation to a Head The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Julie Dean and Suzanne Jones, state that "Customers have complained that the leggings are of such poor quality that holes, tears, and rips appear before wearing, during the first use or shortly thereafter. The leggings have also been described as tearing as easily as 'wet toilet paper.'" The plaintiffs also allege that LuLaRoe has all but admitted that it is responsible for the poor quality, stating in the lawsuit, "Defendants are well aware that their products are defective. With regard to the leggings, Patrick Winget, the head of production for defendants, reportedly wrote in a company-wide email about that, 'The leggings may get holes because we weaken the fibers to make them buttery soft. We have done all we can to fix them.'" Taking Responsibility Part of the issue, the lawsuit alleges, is that LuLaRoe corporate made it nearly impossible for customers to exchange defective leggings or request a refund. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: July 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS If you are or were the owner of a participating policy of the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company at any time between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, inclusive, you are a part of a class action settlement. IMPORTANT PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND, IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION, INCLUDING ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT A Federal Court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. * A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company ("MassMutual"). The class action lawsuit challenges whether MassMutual correctly calculated its compliance with the limitation on retained surplus set forth in Section 141 of Chapter 175 of the General Laws of Massachusetts. * You are included in the settlement if you were a participating policyholder of MassMutual at any time between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), whether or not you received a dividend during that period. * MassMutual has agreed to pay a settlement fund totaling $37.5 million. Members of the Settlement Class with policies that received an annual dividend during the Settlement Class Period are eligible to receive a pro rata share of a settlement fund remaining after payment of any attorneys' fees and expenses the Court awards to Plaintiff's lawyers and any service award to Plaintiff. The amount of each Class Member's payment is based on annual dividends paid on each participating policy they own as a pro rata share of the total amount of annual dividends MassMutual paid on all participating policies issued during the Settlement Class Period. However, if your MassMutual policy or policies are not in force and your pro rata share of the settlement fund would be less than $1.00 you will not receive a payment. * Please read this notice carefully. Your legal rights are affected whether you act, or don't act. THIS TABLE CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT EXCLUDE YOURSELF BY JULY 3, 2017 You will receive no benefits under the settlement, but you will retain any rights you currently have to pursue claims against MassMutual about the allegations in this case. OBJECT BY JULY 3, 2017 Write to the Court if you don't like the settlement to explain why you object. ATTEND A HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. DO NOTHING You will get your share of the settlement benefits to which you are entitled and will give up your rights to sue MassMutual about the allegations in this case. BASIC INFORMATION 1. What is this notice and why should I read it? A court authorized this notice to let you know about a proposed class settlement of a lawsuit called Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, D. Mass. Civil Action No. 12-11280- DJC (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. You need not live in Massachusetts to get a benefit under the settlement. This notice describes the settlement. Please read this notice carefully to determine whether you wish to participate in the settlement. Your rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them -- are explained in this notice. Please understand that if you are a settlement class member, your legal rights are affected regardless of whether you act. 2. What is a class action lawsuit? A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more plaintiffs -- in this case, Plaintiff Karen L. Bacchi (the "Plaintiff") -- sue on behalf of a group of people who allegedly have similar claims. After the Parties reached an agreement to settle this case, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and preliminarily determined that the case should be treated as a class action for settlement purposes. Among other things, this preliminary approval permits Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class and to voice their support of or objection to the settlement before the Court makes a final decision whether to approve the settlement. In a class action, the court resolves the issues for all class members, except those who exclude themselves from the class. THE CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT AND THE SETTLEMENT 3. What is this lawsuit about? Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant MassMutual on behalf of a class of MassMutual participating policyholders alleging that MassMutual withheld more surplus than allowed by Section 141 of Chapter 175 of the General Laws of Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that MassMutual therefore was obligated to pay additional dividends on its participating policies in years during the Settlement Class Period. A more complete description of what Plaintiff alleges is in the Complaint, which is available on the Settlement Website at www.MMLISettlement.com. MassMutual denies Plaintiff's claims of wrongdoing or liability against it, and asserts that its conduct was lawful. MassMutual's answer to the allegations in the Complaint is available on the Settlement Website at www.MMLISettlement.com. MassMutual is settling the Action solely to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and inherent risk and disruption of litigation. 4. Why is there a settlement? The Court has not decided in favor of either side in the case. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, both sides avoided the cost and risk of a trial, and the affected current and former MassMutual policyholders will get substantial benefits. The Plaintiff and her attorneys think the settlement is in the best interests for everyone who owned a participating MassMutual policy during the Settlement Class Period. WHO'S INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? 5. How do I know if I am in the Settlement Class? The Court decided that everyone who fits this description is a member of the Settlement Class: "All individuals and entities who were participating policyholders of MassMutual at any time during the Settlement Class Period [i.e., 'the period of time between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, inclusive'], whether or not those policyholders received a dividend during the Settlement Class Period." The Court has excluded from the Settlement Class "(1) the Honorable Denise J. Casper of the District of Massachusetts (or other Circuit, District, or Magistrate Judge presiding over the Action through which this matter is presented for settlement) and court personnel employed in Judge Casper's or such other Judge's chambers or courtroom; (2) MassMutual, MassMutual's subsidiaries, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which MassMutual has a controlling interest and their current or former officers and directors, except to the extent MassMutual or such other entity is the owner of a policy held for the benefit of an individual who is not otherwise excluded from membership in the Settlement Class and that individual receives the benefit of any dividends that may accrue on the policy; (3) any officer or director of MassMutual identified in MassMutual's Annual Statement during the Settlement Class Period and any member of those persons' immediate families; (4) Persons who properly execute and file a timely Request For Exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (5) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded Persons (but only then in their capacity as legal representative, successor, or assign)." If you meet the definition above, and you are not among those specifically excluded by the Court, you are a member of the Settlement Class. THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS 6. What does the settlement provide? MassMutual has agreed to pay $37,500,000 to Settlement Class Members, which sum includes amounts for attorney's fees and expenses and a service award to Plaintiff (the latter of which amounts must be approved by the Court). (See Questions No. 9-10.) The amount of each Class Member's payment is based on annual dividends paid on each participating policy they own as a pro rata share of the total amount of annual dividends MassMutual paid on all participating policies issued during the Settlement Class Period. (Settlement Class Members who do not own an in-force policy and whose pro rata share of the settlement fund is below $1.00 will not receive a payment.) In addition, MassMutual has agreed to pay the full administrative costs of the settlement. The Parties estimate that the average amount paid to Settlement Class Members receiving benefits will be $22.02. MassMutual also has agreed to continue for at least 10 years to provide to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance voluntary annual safety fund calculations under Section 141 of Chapter 175 of the General Laws of Massachusetts. If you are a member of the Settlement Class (see Question No. 5) and you currently own a participating policy that received any annual dividend during the Settlement Class Period, you will receive a payment under the settlement in the form of a paid-up addition to your policy. If your policy cannot receive paid-up additions for some reason, you may receive a check for the amount of your payment net of any applicable income tax withholding obligations if the amount of that check is not less than $1.00. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and you previously owned a MassMutual participating policy issued during the Settlement Class Period and that received dividends, then you will receive a payment under the settlement if the amount of the payment to you is at least $1.00. The Parties agreed to propose a minimum threshold because of the administrative costs associated with very small payments. You do not have to submit a claim to receive a payment under the settlement. HOW TO GET BENEFITS 7. How do I get benefits? The benefits of the settlement will be distributed automatically once the Court approves the settlement. Settlement Class Members do not have to submit claim forms in order to receive settlement benefits. 8. When will I get my payment? If you own an in-force participating policy that was paid dividends during the Settlement Class Period, then you will receive your pro rata share of the $37,500,000 in the form of additional paid up additions effective no later than 125 days after the settlement has received final approval and/or after any appeals have been resolved in favor of the settlement. The hearing to consider the final fairness of the settlement is scheduled for July 27, 2017, at 3:00 pm. If your participating policies are not in force and your pro rata share is not less than $1.00, you should receive a check from the Settlement Administrator within 90 days after the settlement has received final approval and/or after any appeals have been resolved in favor of the settlement. All checks will expire and become void 180 days after they are issued. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 9. Who represents the Settlement Class? For purposes of the settlement, the Court has appointed lawyers from the law firms of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C.; Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.; and Chavez & Gertler LLP as Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. In addition, the Court appointed Plaintiff Karen L. Bacchi to serve as the Class Representative. She is also a Settlement Class Member. Subject to approval by the Court, Class Counsel has proposed that up to $3,000 may be paid to the Class Representative in recognition of time and effort she expended on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court will determine the proper amount of any award to the Class Representative. The Court may award less than that amount. 10. How will the lawyers be paid? From the beginning of the case, which was filed in July 2012, to the present, Class Counsel have not received any payment for their services in prosecuting the case or obtaining the settlement, nor have they been reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses they have incurred. Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the $37,500,000 settlement amount plus their costs and expenses incurred in prosecution of the case. MassMutual has agreed not to object to such an application. The Court will determine the proper amount of any attorneys' fees and expenses to award Class Counsel. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid to Class Counsel from the $37,500,000 settlement fund. The Settlement Class Members will not have to pay anything toward the fees or expenses of Class Counsel. YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS 11. What is the effect of final approval of the settlement? If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, a final order and judgment dismissing the case will be entered in the Action. Payments under the settlement will then be processed and distributed. The release by Settlement Class Members will also take effect. All members of the Settlement Class will release and forever discharge MassMutual and each of the Released Parties from any and all Released Claims (as defined in the Agreement). Please refer to Section IV of the Agreement for a full description of the claims and persons that will be released upon final approval of the settlement. The Agreement is available at www.MMLISettlement.com. Any and all members of the Settlement Class who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement Class will not be permitted to continue to assert Released Claims in any other litigation against MassMutual or the other persons and entities covered by the Release. If you do not wish to be a Settlement Class Member, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. If the settlement is not approved, the case will proceed as if no settlement had been attempted or reached. If the settlement is not approved and the case resumes, there is no assurance that a class would be certified for litigation purposes or that members of any certified class will recover more than is provided for under the Agreement, or anything at all. 12. What happens if I do nothing at all? If you do nothing, you will release any claims you may have against MassMutual or the Released Parties concerning the conduct Plaintiff alleges in her complaint. (See Question No. 14.) You may also receive a payment as described in Question No. 8. 13. How do I get out of the settlement? To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must send a letter saying that you "wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class in Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 12-11280-DJC"; include your name and address, and your signature. Your Request For Exclusion must be postmarked no later than July 3, 2017, and sent to the Settlement Administrator at the following address: Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Analytics LLC, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317- 2004. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class you will not receive any payment under the settlement and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in the Action. 14. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue MassMutual for the same thing later? No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue MassMutual for the claims being resolved by this settlement. 15. If I exclude myself, can I get anything from this settlement? No. If you exclude yourself, you are not entitled to any benefits under the settlement, but you will also not be bound by the settlement. 16. How do I object to the settlement? If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you can object to the settlement if you don't like any part of it. If you object, you must give the reasons why you think the Court should not approve the settlement. The Court will consider your views. Your objection to the settlement must be postmarked no later than July 3, 2017 and must be sent to the Court and the attorneys for the Parties at the addresses below: Court Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Massachusetts John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse One Courthouse Way, Suite 2300 Boston, MA 02210 Class Counsel Jason B. Adkins John Peter Zavez ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C. 90 Canal Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02114 MassMutual's Counsel James R. Carroll Kurt Wm. Hemr Alisha Q. Nanda SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 The objection must be in writing and include the case name Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 12-11280-DJC; as well as include your (a) name; (b) address; (d) a statement that you are a member of the Settlement Class; (e) the specific grounds for the objection (including all arguments, citations, and evidence supporting the objection); (f) all documents or writings that you desire the Court to consider (including all copies of any documents relied upon in the objection); (g) your signature; and (h) a notice of intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing (if applicable). (If you are represented by counsel, you or your counsel must file your objection through the Court's CM/ECF system.) The Court will consider all properly filed comments from Settlement Class Members. If you wish to appear and be heard at the Fairness Hearing in addition to submitting a written objection to the settlement, you or your attorney must say so in your written objection. Class Counsel will file with the Court and post on the Settlement Website its request for attorneys' fees two weeks prior to July 3, 2017. 17. What's the difference between objecting and excluding myself from the settlement? Objecting means telling the Court what you don't like about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class. Excluding yourself from the Settlement Class is telling the Court that you don't want to be part of the Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you. THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING 18. When and where will the Court hold a hearing on the fairness of the settlement? A Fairness Hearing has been set for July 27, 2017 at 3:00 pm, before The Honorable Denise J. Casper at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, One Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210 in Courtroom 11. At the hearing, the Court will hear any comments, objections, and arguments concerning the fairness of the proposed settlement, including the amounts requested by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to the Class Representative. You do not need to attend this hearing. You also do not need to attend to have an objection considered by the Court. (See Question No. 19.) Note: The date and time of the Fairness Hearing are subject to change by Court Order, but any changes will be posted at www.MMLISettlement.com. 19. Do I have to come to the Fairness Hearing? No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. But you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you don't have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as any written objection you choose to make was filed and mailed on time and meets the other criteria described in the settlement, the Court will consider it. You may also pay another lawyer to attend, but you don't have to. 20. May I speak at the Fairness Hearing? If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may ask the Court for permission to speak at the hearing concerning any part of the proposed settlement by following the instructions in Question No. 16 above. GETTING MORE INFORMATION 21. Where can I get additional information? This notice provides only a summary of the matters relating to the settlement. For more detailed information, you may wish to review the Agreement. You can view the Agreement and get more information at www.MMLISettlement.com. You can also get more information by writing to the Settlement Administrator at Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Analytics LLC, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004 or calling toll-free 844-623-5243. In addition, the Agreement and all other pleadings and papers filed in the case are available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court located at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, One Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, MA 02210. If you would like additional information, you can also call Class Counsel, toll-free, at 1-855-882-6336. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE JUDGE, OR THE DEFENDANT MASSMUTUAL WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. QUESTIONS? CALL 1-844-623-5243 TOLL FREE, OR VISIT WWW.MMLISETTLEMENT.COM MDL 1700: Class Deal in FedEx Employment Practices Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Roger Riewe, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 3:05cv390 RLM-MGG (IN), Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM, No. MDL 1700 (N.D. Ind.), Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the Indiana class action settlement calling for payment of $33,950,000 to the plaintiffs. A series of cases were filed in which FedEx Ground drivers claimed to be employees, rather than the independent contractors their employment contracts announced. In July 2005, FedEx Ground's second request to centralize the cases was granted. Each case was mediated separately, with some cases requiring several sessions. The drivers and FedEx Ground exchanged experts' views as to the maximum recovery for each case if the drivers prevailed across the board. Settlements were reached in each case, and the court granted preliminary approval of each of the settlements. The plaintiffs then retained Rust Consulting to administer the settlements. In June 2016, the parties reached a proposed settlement. FedEx Ground would pay $33,950,000 to the plaintiffs. For each workweek of 35 or more hours during the class period, each class member would receive $83.83; for each workweek of 16-35 hours, each class member would receive $29.34. No class member would receive less than a $250 lump sum. The average recovery per class member would be $29,520, with the highest share being $116,028. No plaintiff would be required to fill out, or collect the information needed for, a claim form. No part of the settlement fund would revert to FedEx Ground if anything were left over. No class member has objected to the proposed settlement. Judge Miller found that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for its final approval. Judge Miller also granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs and awarded class representatives Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, and David Stacy $15,000 each for their services in this case. Plaintiffs' counsel was awarded $10,185,000 from the class settlement fund. A full-text copy of Judge Miller's April 28, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/rXcddH from Leagle.com. Roger Riewe, David Stacy, Jeffrey Shelton, Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis M. Brennan, Brennan & Brennan PC, Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com -- Anderson Agostino & Keller PC. All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn R. Faris -- lfaris@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP. FedEx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Pamela A. Paige -- ppaige@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett Cooney PC. FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Defendant, represented by Alison G. Fox -- alison.fox@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Laura E. Robinson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. MIDWAY OILFIELD: "Flores" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Jose A. Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midway Oilfield Constructors, Inc. d/b/a Midway Energy Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00312 (E.D. Tex., April 14, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff and Class Members were not compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the rates required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed as a tool pusher. Defendant is an oilfield services company that does business in various states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McGuire, Esq. The McGuire Firm, PC 102 N. College St., Suite 301 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: 903-630-7154 Fax: 903-630-7173 Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Keith Miller, Esq. Law Office of Keith Miller 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: 903-597-4090 Fax: 903-597-3692 Email: keith@5974090.net MONSANTO: Former EPA Director Taken to Court in Glyphosate Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Pris Pho, writing for Who What Why, reports that the former Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who allegedly bragged that he deserved a medal for killing a study about the safety of Monsanto products is being taken to court over his refusal to answer "simple" questions about his current employment. Jess Rowland left the EPA in May 2016 soon after the apparently inadvertent release of an internal memorandum. Mr. Rowland was the chair of the committee that concluded that glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's flagship weed killer Roundup, was "not carcinogenic to humans." The report was posted briefly online before being pulled. It was later cited in one of Monsanto's court cases. Monsanto is currently facing more than 50 lawsuits from farmers and clients diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma for allegedly causing the cancer through exposure to the company's flagship weed killer, Roundup, and for covering up the risks. The EPA is also being sued for delaying the release of the agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) report and all documents relating to glyphosate. This follows a report from the World Health Organization labelling the active ingredient glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015. In the process, San Francisco federal district court Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the communications between the EPA and Monsanto to be unsealed. "Monsanto's production of documents suggests that Mr. Rowland went out of his way to benefit Monsanto's business," states the current brief against Rowland, which was filed on April 28. "In the absence of scientific evidence to support its claim that Roundup does not cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Monsanto has relied overwhelmingly on the conclusions of the EPA, specifically a report engineered and authored by [Jess] Rowland . . . [who] is not a medical doctor, has no PhD., was not trained in nor worked in the fields of epidemiology or toxicology, and did not include any medical doctors in his review process and report on Glyphosate." During a deposition with Jess Rowland over a possible cover up between the EPA and Monsanto, Rowland "refused to answer the simple question of whom he has been working for post-EPA departure" in May 2016, the brief states. "Mr. Rowland's counsel corresponded with plaintiffs multiple times prior to deposition stating that he is not consulting for Monsanto since his retirement, and that he needn't be questioned on his consulting work any further," stated a letter request from the plaintiffs to Judge Chhabria. Claiming that the information was irrelevant to the case, Rowland refused to answer "simple, relevant, [and] unprivileged questions," according to the letter. Subsequently, the Miller Firm, one of the representing law firms handling the litigation, requested a telephone hearing on April 24th. Under the judge's order ruled on the same day, Mr. Rowland then "almost immediately" revealed three companies for whom he has been consulting since leaving the EPA. Despite his counsel having previously stated that his recent work has been unrelated to the chemical industry, Mr. Rowland admitted that his consulting work concerned chemicals. In light of this misrepresentation of facts, the lawyers for the class action suit asked the court to compel Mr. Rowland to answer follow-up questions "which violate no privilege" that he refused to do under the orders of his lawyers. "The remaining questions that the witness refused to answer are relevant to the reasons why EPA engaged in this relationship . . . Without that information, Plaintiffs will still be fighting Monsanto's "EPA defense" with two hands tied behind their backs," the lawyers' request stated. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-00306-TC (D. Utah, April 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. is an insurer organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Stavros, Esq. Michele Anderson-West, Esq. Adam Clark, Esq. Austin Egan, Esq. STAVROS LAW P.C. 11693 South 700 East, Suite 200 Draper, UT 84020 Telephone: (801) 758-7604 Facsimile: (801) 893-3573 E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com michele@stavroslaw.com adam@stavroslaw.com austin@stavroslaw.com NUVASIVE INC: Judge Denies Request to Stay Kickback Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fink Densford, writing for MassDevice, reports that NuVasive Inc. was denied a stay of action as it looks to pause a class action case which alleges that the company lost share value after it hid a kickback scheme. NuVasive was requesting the stay while it appeals a case that was certified in March. The motion appointed Brad Mass and Daniel Popov as class representatives. Judge Jeffrey Miller of the US District Court of the Southern District of California denied the request for a stay on April 28, according to court documents. "Here, Defendants' motion to stay is not well-founded because they fail to establish a serious legal question or that they would be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted," Judge Miller wrote in court documents. Judge Miller wrote that public interests "caution against granting a stay of this action," according to the documents. "This case is nearly four-years old and the public has an interest in the efficient prosecution of securities laws and seeking to hold alleged corporate wrongdoers accountable. This factor does not favor a stay." Plaintiffs in the suit allege that NuVasive submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid in violation of state laws and regulations, and that the company made illegal kickbacks to doctors and engaged in off-label promotion of its products and services, according to court documents. NuVasive paid approximately $13.5 million in fines and penalties related to the alleged actions, according to the plaintiffs, while shareholders "suffered significant losses and damages," according to court documents. The payment dates back to 2015, when the company finalized a previously announced deal with the Justice Dept. NuVasive said in July 2013 that the U.S. Health & Human Services Dept.'s inspector general issued a subpoena "in connection with an investigation into possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid" for documents from January 2007 through April 2013. In April the company said it agreed to pay $13.8 million to settle the probe. On July 29, 2015 NuVasive said the deal called for it to pay $13.5 million, plus fees and accrued interest, but admitted no wrongdoing in the case. [GN] ORACLE CORP: Denial of "Matam" Suit Class Certification Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification in the case captioned RAGHUNANDAN MATAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. A143830 (Cal. Ct. App.). Raghunandan Matam, a former employee of Oracle Corporation, brought a putative class action against Oracle alleging that Oracle committed various violations of California's wage and hour laws, including by failing to pay class members for overtime and by failing to provide class members with required meal and rest periods. Matam sought certification of the proposed class, relying principally on his expert's analysis of various Oracle databases to conclude that class members worked overtime for which they were not paid and had meal breaks that were short, late, or missed altogether. Oracle opposed Matam's motion and submitted the declaration of its own expert, who opined that Matam's expert had made numerous errors in his method and his calculations, rendering his conclusions unreliable. The trial court agreed, and denied Matam's motion finding he had failed to demonstrate that common questions predominated and that his claims were capable of class-wide proof. In affirming the trial court's order, the Court of Appeals of California concluded that the trial court acted within the bounds of its discretion and that substantial evidence supports its determination that a liability determination cannot be made based upon the analysis of Matam's expert on Oracle's databases. The appellate court also held that, because the trial court found that Matam did not establish that class members took non-compliant meal breaks or worked time for which they were not paid, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Matam had failed to satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements. A full-text copy of the appellate court's April 28, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/12vrbB from Leagle.com. OUNZE CORPORATE: "Rives" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Javier Rives, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ounze Corporate, LLC d/b/a Tapelia, and Juan Miguel Perez Rodriguez, Case No. 1:17-cv-21467-CMA (S.D. Fla. April 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com POLK FOUNDATION: "Confair" Sues Over Non-Payment of OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Randy Confair, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charles P. and Margaret E. Polk Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00674-SHR (M.D. Pa., April 14, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime pay in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was required and/or permitted to work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, but was not properly compensated at one and a half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked over forty (40) hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked as a maintenance man for the Polk Foundation at their facilities in Millersburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania based non-profit corporation, which operates Polk Personal Care Center, an assisted living facility, a medical center and other related facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. McCarthy Weisberg Cummings, P.C. 2041 Herr Street Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624 Tel: (717) 238-5707 Fax: (717) 233-8133 Email: dcummings@mwcfirm.com lweisberg@mwcfirm.com PUERTO RICO: Bondholders File Suits After Litigation Freeze Ends ---------------------------------------------------------------- Danica Coto, writing for The Associated Press, reports that bondholders sued Puerto Rico on May 2 in the first legal challenges to hit the U.S. territory after the expiration of a freeze on litigation that protected it from lawsuits amid a deep economic crisis. A group representing those who bought a portion of the $16 billion worth of bonds backed by Puerto Rico's sales tax said in its lawsuit that a government plan to cut its $70 billion debt is unconstitutional. The group accused government officials of strong-arming it into what it called "unfair, unjust, and illegally punitive terms." Another lawsuit filed by Ambac Assurance Corp. accuses the government of illegally retaining $300 million owed to bondholders. The company said it also has been forced to pay more than $52 million in insurance claims as a result of ongoing defaults by Puerto Rico's government. Ambac also filed three other lawsuits, one against U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin seeking a lien on rum taxes that his department collects and later remits to Puerto Rico. Ambac argued that Puerto Rico has illegally diverted rum tax revenue slated for bondholders. Aurelius Investment LLC and others who represent those who hold some $1.4 billion in general obligation bonds also filed a lawsuit against Puerto Rico. The group said it is seeking in part to recuperate more than $240 million worth of interest owed, plus interest. The bonds are backed by the island's constitution. The lawsuits are expected to be among several filed as bondholders seek to recover the money they invested in Puerto Rico government bonds. Puerto Rico already faced about a dozen lawsuits before the litigation freeze was implemented as part of a rescue package that U.S. Congress approved last year. The newest suits come after the administration of Gov. Ricardo Rossello failed to negotiate any deal with bondholders after the May 1 deadline of the litigation freeze. Puerto Rico has defaulted on $1.3 billion of principal owed since the previous governor declared the $70 billion public debt load unpayable in June 2015. Puerto Rico Chief of Staff William Villafane told The Associated Press just hours before the freeze expired that the government preferred to reach a deal with bondholders. But he said embracing a bankruptcy-like process could be an option if negotiations fail. "At least essential services would be guaranteed," he said. A spokeswoman for Gov. Ricardo Rossello said there would be no immediate comment other than a statement issued late on May 1 in which the administration said it was pursuing consensual agreements but that other options are on the table. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New York Democrat, demanded faster action, calling on a federal control board overseeing Puerto Rico's finances to seek a court-supervised debt restructuring similar to Chapter 9. "And Governor Rossello must either get on board or get out of the way," she said, saying she voted in favor of a rescue package last year so Puerto Rico could restructure its debt. "Puerto Rico is no longer shielded from creditors rushing to the courthouse to lay claim to its assets -- that includes the beaches, pieces of art, historical furniture and any assets whether they are nailed down or not. The people of Puerto Rico have had enough. The governor and the board have a moral imperative to act immediately." Puerto Rico could announce a historic, court-supervised restructuring for a portion of its $70 billion debt. By comparison, the U.S. city of Detroit had $9.3 billion of obligations when it filed for bankruptcy in 2013 in the biggest U.S. municipal bankruptcy ever. Puerto Rico's situation is more dire than Detroit's because the city, in part, had a firm set of rules in bankruptcy court, an option that the U.S. territory doesn't have, said Greg Clark, head of municipal research at Debtwire. He also noted that that the government has to walk a fine line with bondholders amid negotiations. "They're going to need them again at some point," he said. "Where that sweet spot is, nobody exactly knows." The government on April 29 offered to pay 50 cents on the dollar to holders of general obligation and sales-tax bonds backed by Puerto Rico's constitution. Bondholders rejected the offer. A fiscal plan for Puerto Rico sets aside $800 million a year for debt payments, a fraction of the $35 billion due in interest and payments over the next decade. PURDUE PHARMA: Settles OxyContin Class Action for $20 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Howlett, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the pharmaceutical giant behind the blockbuster pain pill that triggered Canada's deadly opioid crisis has agreed to pay $20- million to settle a long-standing class-action lawsuit. The proposed national settlement caps a legal battle that began a decade ago between Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and lawyers representing as many as 2,000 Canadians who got hooked on the drug after their doctors prescribed it. The country's opioid epidemic traces its roots to the introduction of the prescription painkiller 21 years ago. From 2000 to 2015, more than 6,300 died in Ontario alone from overdoses related to opioids. "We're happy we at least have something to offer to the class members after all this time," Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner said. The settlement, which must be approved by the courts, includes $2- million in compensation for provincial governments. The provinces' public drug programs spent $93-million in 2014 on medications to treat patients suffering from dependence on opioids, a 60-per-cent increase over four years, according to figures obtained by The Globe and Mail. Mr. Wagner's law firm launched the class action in 2007 in Atlantic Canada and later joined forces with firms in Ontario and Saskatchewan representing people across the rest of the country who were introduced to the drug through a doctor's prescription. The class-action accuses Purdue of knowing that anyone who took OxyContin would be at risk of becoming addicted to it and suffer withdrawal symptoms if they stopped. But at no time were these risks disclosed. The settlement is not an admission of liability by Purdue. "The complaints stem from marketing activities that allegedly occurred primarily between 1996 and 2001," the company said in a statement. Purdue and the owners of the Stamford, Conn.-based company, the Sackler family, amassed a fortune from OxyContin. Purdue generated $31-billion (U.S.) in revenue from the drug, and the Sacklers were included on Forbes Magazine's list of the richest American families in 2015, with an estimated net worth of $14- billion. It was Purdue's marketing prowess that transformed the way doctors treat pain. Until the mid-1990s, opioids were used primarily for people with terminal cancer. But Purdue said its innovative pill would substantially improve the "efficiency and quality of pain management" because it did not need to be taken as frequently as other medications, according to documents filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office seeking to patent OxyContin. In 1996, Health Canada approved the drug to relieve pain that was moderate to severe. Purdue distinguished OxyContin from its rivals by promoting its time-release formula -- the pill was designed to be swallowed whole and digested over 12 hours. Company sales reps persuaded doctors to expand their use of opioids beyond treating cancer pain by pushing the notion that OxyContin posed a lower threat of abuse and dependence to patients than other, faster-acting painkillers, the lawsuit says. Doctors started prescribing OxyContin for everything from backaches to fibromyalgia, and the drug became the top-selling long-acting opioid in Canada for more than a decade. OxyContin also became a lightning rod in the early 2000s, as reports of opioid dependence and overdoses exploded. But the nature and scope of Purdue's deceit did not become publicly known until May, 2007, when the company and three of its executives paid $634.5-million to settle criminal and civil charges against them in the United States for misbranding OxyContin as less addictive than other pain medications. With questions mounting in Canada about OxyContin's role in the opioid crisis, Purdue pulled the drug from the market in 2012, just a few months before the patent was to expire. Purdue attempted to paint the problem as one of abuse, saying people were intentionally using the pills to get high. OxyContin was popular not only with people who became dependent after their doctors prescribed it, but also with heroin users, because it could be crushed, snorted or injected for a quick high. A host of other, stronger drugs filled the void when it was taken off the market, including illicit fentanyl, which began appearing on Canada's streets in 2012. "The people we represent in our class action were given the drug by their family physician and they were misinformed about the impact," Mr. Wagner said. Jordan Grenier, 59, is one of them. The Oakville, Ont., resident has been drug-free for two years. But his previous dependency on prescription opioids cost him his career as a car salesman and he is now on disability. At one point, he was taking 80 milligrams of OxyContin twice a day after he injured his back unloading a truck in the late 1980s. "The doctor told me at the time that this is a miracle drug and it is not addictive," he said. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a San Diego County consumer alleges a Van Nuys company unlawfully called her to solicit its services. Rebecca Stacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Renewable Energy Center LLC, doing business as American Pro Energy, alleging that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that starting March 30, she received numerous telephone calls on her cellular telephone from the defendant utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice. She alleges she asked to be removed from the defendant's call list and not to call her anymore but still received numerous calls. The plaintiff holds Renewable Energy Center LLC, doing business as American Pro Energy, responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to get prior express consent before placing numerous calls and failed to cease all calls even after being requested to stop. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks for herself and each class member $500 in statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future and any other relief the court may deem just and proper. She is represented by Joshua Swigart and Kevin Lemieux of Hyde and Swigart in San Diego. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case number 3:17-cv-00755-CAB-WVG [GN] ROMBOUT VILLAGE: Shareholders File Class Action Against Board ------------------------------------------------------------- Habitat, citing the Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that shareholders, fined for feeding squirrels, sue co-op board. Shareholders have filed 10 lawsuits against the Rombout Village board of directors and its management company over the past decade. The two latest, in state Supreme Court, claim that illegal fines have been used to harass and intimidate shareholders and, ultimately, invalidate their leases. The reasons for the fines? Squirrels were seen eating bread left in the bed of a shareholder's pickup truck. Another shareholder was fined for tossing a football with his son in the co-op's parking lot. A third shareholder was fined for "objectionable conduct" when she complained that her air conditioning had not been repaired by the co-op's staff. A fourth was fined for taking pictures of construction materials containing black mold that had been removed from one of the apartments. In each case, management determined that the shareholders had violated the cooperative's bylaws or house rules. "Respect and adherence to these rules are essential for many people to coexist peacefully in the same space," says Bill Dimmick, Rombout Village's property manager and a former board member. More plaintiffs may be coming. In what experts say is a rare move in lawsuits against co-op boards, the attorney in the two pending cases is seeking class-actions status. In court papers, attorney Matthew Noviello of Carmel said class-action status is necessary, in part, because many shareholders are so intimidated by the fines and alleged harassment, they are afraid to assert their legal rights. Lawsuits have been leveled at the board since 2005 by shareholders, a local contractor, the state Division of Human Rights, and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, many alleging punitive actions taken by management. Rombout Village has prevailed in most cases, settled at least one and lost the lawsuit involving the contractor who was not paid for work. "Life here," says one of the plaintiffs, Frances Hilton, "has been hell." It's almost enough to make you want to move to big bad New York City. ROYAL BANCSHARES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of holders of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. ("Royal Bancshares") (NASDAQ:RBPAA) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Royal Bancshares by Bryn Mawr Bank Corporation ("Bryn Mawr") announced on January 31, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Royal Bancshares, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Bryn Mawr, is captioned Parshall v. Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-1641 (E.D. Pa.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On January 30, 2017, Royal Bancshares entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Bryn Mawr. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Royal Bancshares will receive 0.1025 shares of Bryn Mawr common stock for each share of Class A common stock they own, and 0.1179 shares of Bryn Mawr common stock for each share of Class B common stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which recommends that Royal Bancshares stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to Royal Bancshares' financial projections, the analyses performed by Royal Bancshares' financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Royal Bancshares common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 30, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN] RUBIN & ROTHMAN: "Dickon" Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD DICKON, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07961-SCM (DNJ), the Plaintiff was slated to move the Court on May 9, 2017, at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom MLK 2B, at the United States Court for the District of New Jersey, for an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action and final approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement, on behalf of the following class: "all natural persons with addresses in the State of New Jersey, against whom Rubin & Rothman filed a complaint in a lawsuit, between November 14, 2014, and September 25, 2015, in connection with the collection of a consumer debt on behalf of Toyota, which indicated Toyota was seeking to collect late charges or attorney's fees". The Plaintiff's complaint alleges Rubin & Rothman violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending consumers initial collection letters that failed to inform consumers late charges and attorneys' fees would be added to their debts if/when a lawsuit was filed and, therefore, failed to correctly state the amount of the debt owed. The Litigation further alleged that Rubin & Rothman was not legally permitted to collect such attorneys' fees and late charges in the collection lawsuit it filed. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r3ytvE5d The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 - and - Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN & THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 SAFEWAY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Overtime Pay Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that employees who spend more than half their work time carrying out management tasks aren't eligible for overtime pay, a California appeals court ruled earlier this month. In its ruling handed down April 4, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, ruled against a group of Safeway assistant managers who claimed they should be classified as nonexempt, making them eligible for overtime pay. The ruling also upheld a lower court's findings that more than half of the assistant managers' time had work was spent in management tasks, making them exempt from overtime pay. "The evidence presented bore out the court's conclusions," the appeals court ruling said. "Each appellant relied on different facts and different scenarios, and there was little overlap in the evidence to support the respective claims. Moreover, numerous managers and AMs testified that the majority of their workdays was spent attending to managerial duties." The assistant store managers also based their claims for non- exempt status on their job requirements that they carry out non- exempt work such as stocking shelves, checking customers' purchases and building product displays. The appeals court didn't look favorably on that claim. "That managerial employees performed lengthy store walks once or twice a day for the purpose of talking to department heads and other employees, assessing the condition of the store and determining the problems that needed to be addressed throughout the store that day, was established by the testimony of numerous witnesses, and supported the court's categorization of store walks as exempt tasks," the ruling said. The case has its roots in the putative class action filed in July of 2002 filed by Peter Knoch and Jason Ritchey on behalf of all Safeway store managers and assistant manager over unpaid overtime and alleged violations of California's unfair competition laws. Class certification was denied in July 2007 with the ordering denying that certification entered in September of the following year. Before that denial, Safeway Assistant Manager Gary Batze filed his complaint for unpaid wages in February 2006. Two other assistant managers, Carlo Cesar and Justin Hayes, filed complaints in October 2008. Other managerial level employees also filed related complaints in 2005 and 2006, and all of the claims later were combined. During their appeal, plaintiffs claimed that the trial court was wrong when it ruled that they spent most of their work time at Safeway in managerial tasks during the four-year period described in their complaints. The court rejected that argument, as well as other allegations that a strike period amounted to an emergency that allowed Safeway to assign management employees to do non- exempt tasks without losing their exempt status. The appellate court likewise upheld the trial court's finding that the class action did not toll the statute of limitations. "The fact that nearly 200 plaintiffs had already brought individual claims before the class certification was denied adds further support to the trial court's ruling, as it demonstrates that denial of class certification was not unforeseen," the appeals court ruling said. "The court also found that Cesar and Hayes unreasonably delayed asserting their claims after certification was denied, adding to the prejudice to respondent of defending stale claims." [GN] STEAK 'N SHAKE: Must Face ADA Class Action, Judge Rules ------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a lawsuit alleging the Steak 'n Shake restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by not having adequate accessibility for handicapped patrons has been granted class action status. U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of Pennsylvania granted lead plaintiffs Christopher Mielo and Sarah Heinzl's motion for class approval April 27 in their case against Steak 'n Shake Operations Inc. The class includes "[a]ll persons with qualified mobility disabilities who were or will be denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any Steak 'n Shake restaurant location in the United States on the basis of a disability because such persons encountered accessibility barriers at Steak'n Shake restaurants where defendant owns, controls and/or operates the parking facilities." R. Bruce Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela represents the class plaintiffs and did not return a call seeking comment. Maria Greco Danaher -- maria.danaher@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart represents Steak 'n Shake and also did not return a call seeking comment. The lead plaintiffs are both paraplegic and require the use of wheelchairs. According to Judge Mitchell's opinion, the two visited multiple Steak 'n Shake locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio and found the restaurants had architectural barriers in the parking lots preventing easy access to wheelchairs. In their lawsuit, they claimed the lack of accessibility violated Title III of the ADA, which "prohibits discrimination against the disabled in the full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations." "Plaintiffs contend that defendant has adopted an ADA compliance policy that largely ignores its obligation to ensure its parking facilities become and remain accessible to individuals with disabilities," Judge Mitchell said. "Specifically, when a restaurant is built, defendant does not conduct an independent post-construction assessment to determine whether architectural barriers actually exist in its parking facilities, but rather, relies exclusively on purportedly ADA complaint design plans as its sole means of ensuring a parking facility is constructed in compliance with the ADA." Steak 'n Shake argued that the court should interpret the ADA as limiting the company's restaurant maintenance obligations to correcting temporary mechanical failures. But Judge Mitchell said that "[f]or the purpose of deciding the motion before us, we agree with plaintiffs." Judge Mitchell found that the plaintiffs satisfied all of the requirements for a class action, including numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. [GN] SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Gamory" Suit Over FDCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Gamory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02727 (S.D. N.Y., April 14, 2017) seeks damages, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and costs for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff without disclosing that the account balances due may increase due to interest and fees, the complaint says. Defendant is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor Litvak, Esq. The Litvak Law Firm, PLLC 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718) 989-2908 Fax: (718) 989-2908 Email: Igor@LitvakLawNY.com SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNCR) from December 6, 2016 through April 26, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Synchronoss investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Synchronoss class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1107.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Synchronoss would not be able to meet revenue guidance provided to investors; (2) as such, Synchronoss would need to revise its prior guidance; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Synchronoss's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 30, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1107.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. [GN] TABATCHNICK FINE: Faces GE Ingredients Labeling Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ J.R. Pegg, writing for Food Chemical News, reports that New Jersey-based soup manufacturer Tabatchnick Fine Foods has been served with a false advertising lawsuit that alleges it is misleading consumers by labeling products that contain GMOs as "all-natural." The complaint adds to a growing list of litigation that stems from both the FDA's reluctance to formally define "natural" claims and consumer wariness of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients. The lawsuit, filed April 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges the plaintiff -- and a potential class of thousands -- would not have purchased Tabatchinick's soups if they'd known the products contained GE soy, corn. [GN] TARO PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, INC., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Case No. 16-08911, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern District New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01759-CMR to the proceeding. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Christina H.C. Sharp, Esq. Daniel C. Girard, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California St 14th Fl San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com chc@girardgibbs.com dcg@girardgibbs.com - and- Peter George Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 1250 Broadway 27th Fl New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne Elizabeth Railton, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 459-7434 E-mail: arailton@goodwinlaw.com - and - Christopher T. Holding, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 E-mail: cholding@goodwinlaw.com TENNESSEE: DCS Prepares to Exit Court Foster Care Oversight ----------------------------------------------------------- Open Minds reports that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) is preparing to exit court oversight in the Brian A v. Haslam class-action lawsuit, filed in 2000 by Children's Rights on behalf of children in foster care. When the lawsuit was filed, DCS caseworkers had high caseloads, and children were often placed in congregate care, such as orphanage-like settings and emergency shelters. The plaintiffs said the state violated children's constitutional rights, and subjected children to physical and emotional harm and ongoing risks of such harm. TEXAS: 5th Cir. Vacates Fee Award to Plaintiffs in Medicaid Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's interim fee order which awarded the full amount of requested attorney fees to the plaintiffs in a class action that was brought on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children in Texas. The class action was brought more than two decades ago, alleging that the State was failing to provide adequate Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) services. The EPSDT program focuses on preventative health care for indigent children, especially routine checkups and necessary follow up care. The district court had entered a consent decree in 1996 aimed at "enhance[ing] the availability of health care services, eliminate[ing] barriers that have the effect of preventing access to services, and more effectively inform[ing] recipients that services are available and important to their current and future health." More than a decade later, in 2007, the plaintiffs successfully obtained an agreed corrective action order. The order resulted from the plaintiffs' motions to enforce and to find the defendants in violation of the original decree. Each of the plans in the 2007 order deals with a specific issue, such as transportation, health care provider training, and outreach efforts. Portions of the original consent decree and a 2007 corrective action order are still in effect. But the district court recently concluded that one of the 11 corrective plans from the 2007 order -- one requiring Texas to provide annual reports on the number of eligible children receiving medical and dental checkups and to take steps to boost compliance in counties that lag behind statewide participation rates -- was no longer needed. That decision was made in response to motions filed pursuant to a procedure the 2007 corrective action order set forth in which, after four years, the parties would confer about the need for further action. If the parties were unable to reach agreement, as turned out to be the case, the "dispute [would] be resolved by the Court." The plaintiffs nonetheless sought attorney fees incurred both in preparing their motion and opposing the one filed by defendants. They asserted entitlement to fees both as a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. section 1988 and as a matter of contractual right under a fee order that accompanied the 2007 corrective action order. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and awarded the full amount of requested fees without engaging in a reasonableness analysis that considered the plaintiffs' degree of success. The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' their requested $129,140.00 for work on the contested motions. The Fifth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs had an entitlement to fees as the round of motion practice was the final step contemplated under the 2007 corrective action order for which they were the prevailing party. However, the appellate court also held that, as with a typical fee request, the district court should have engaged in a reasonableness analysis that included evaluating the party's degree of success. The case is captioned CARLA FREW; CHARLOTTE GARVIN, as next friend of her minor children Johnny Martinez, Brooklyn Garvin and BreAnna Garvin; CLASS MEMBERS; NICOLE CARROLL, Class Representative; MARIA AYALA, as next friend of her minor children, Christopher Arizola, Leonard Jimenez and Joseph Veliz; MARY JANE GARZA, as next friend of her minor children, Hilary Garza and Sarah Renea Garza, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHRIS TRAYLOR, Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in his official capacity; KAY GHAHREMANI, State Medicaid Director of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in her official capacity, Defendants- Appellants, No. 14-41232 (5th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's April 27, 2017 ruling is available at https://is.gd/EdYGbK from Leagle.com. Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by: Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq. -- and -- Jane K. Swanson, Esq. 1408 Bentwood Rd Austin, TX 78722-1016 Tel: (512)220-0678 Defendant-Appellant is represented by: James Byron Eccles, Esq. -- and -- Arthur D'Andrea, Esq. Tel: (512)936-0181 -- and -- J. Campbell Barker, Esq. 300 W 15th St Austin, TX 78701-1649 Tel: (512)936-1700 -- and -- Sean Patrick Flammer, Esq. The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78702 Tel: (512)623-7727 Fax: (512)623-7729 THIRD AVENUE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Third Avenue Fund Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re THIRD AVENUE MANAGEMENT LLC SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-02758-PKC CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING THE THIRD AVENUE FOCUSED CREDIT FUND TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF THE THIRD AVENUE FOCUSED CREDIT FUND (THE "FUND") DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2015, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS PERIOD") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that Plaintiffs have reached a proposed settlement with Defendants to resolve all claims in the case for $14,250,000 in cash. Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a "Settlement Hearing" will be held on June 23, 2017, at 2:15 p.m., before the Honorable P. Kevin Castel, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine, among other things: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Action for the sum of $14,250,000 in cash on the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated March 31, 2017 ("Stipulation")1 should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether an Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Judgment should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED FUND SHARES DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Third Avenue Fund Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30255, College Station, TX 77842-3255, by telephone, at 1-844-540-6003, or by email, at info@thirdavenuefundsettlement.com. You may also download these documents from the Internet at www.thirdavenuefundsettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than July 19, 2017, at the Claims Administrator's address, Third Avenue Fund Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30255, College Station, TX 77842-3255 or online at www.thirdavenuefundsettlement.com no later than July 19, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, such that it is postmarked no later than June 2, 2017 in accordance with the instructions in the detailed Notice, referred to above. If you submit a valid and timely request for exclusion, you cannot share in the settlement money, cannot object to the Settlement, and will not be bound by the Settlement or the Court's rulings. Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses must comply with the requirements stated in the Notice and must be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, no later than June 2, 2017, and received by the following no later than June 2, 2017: Lead Counsel: Defendants' Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Jeffrey D. Light 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 ROPES & GRAY LLP Robert A. Skinner Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement or the Action, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above or Rick Nelson, a representative of Lead Counsel at 1-800- 449-4900. DATED: April 20, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 The Stipulation and other settlement related documents can be viewed at www.thirdavenuefundsettlement.com. [GN] TILLIS PEST: Faces "Barbour" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rob Barbour, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tillis Pest Control, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00677-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 14, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees an overtime premium for all of the overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff Rob Barbour was employed by Defendant as a manager. Defendant Tillis Pest Control, Inc. operates a pest control company in Debary, in Volusia County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 813-224-0431; 813-229-8712 Fax: 813-229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com mk@wfclaw.com TREASURY WINE: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------ The Australian ALitigation funder IMF Bentham says the Federal Court has ordered that a class action brought against wine producer Treasury Wine Estates go to mediation before mid-August. IMF said on May 1 that the order for mediation before August 14 meant no more than that the parties propose to discuss settlement in good faith. Treasury Wine Estates shareholders began legal action against the global winemaker and distributor in 2013 for allegedly breaching disclosure obligations over writedowns incurred to deal with excess, aged and deteriorating stock in the United States. US CONCRETE: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on May 1 announced a class action lawsuit against U.S. Concrete, Inc. ("U.S. Concrete" or the "Company") (USCR) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between March 6, 2015 and March 23, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the May 30, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, U.S. Concrete made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting and thus its public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 24, 2017, U.S. Concrete filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the resignation of the Company's CFO Joseph Tusa, and advising investors that the Company dismissed its previous auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, and engaged Ernst & Young LLP as its new public accounting firm. When this information reached the public, U.S. Concrete's stock price declined materially, which harmed investors according to the Complaint. Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles devoted to upholding shareholders' rights. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] WELLS FARGO: August 30 TCPA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"). The lawsuit alleges Wells Fargo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to initiate calls to cell phones ("Automatic Calls") in connection with student loans, without prior express consent. Wells Fargo denies the allegations, and the Court has not decided who is right. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. You are included in the Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if you received an Automatic Call regarding a Wells Fargo student loan account from April 21, 2011 to December 19, 2015. Wells Fargo has agreed to create a $2,075,071.80 Settlement Fund. The Fund will be used to make cash payments to Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims and to pay Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs (up to $622,522), a $15,000 service award to each of the two Class Representatives, and settlement administration costs. Settlement Class Member's payments are estimated to be between $20 and $50, but they will depend on the total number of approved claims that are filed. To receive payment, you must complete and submit a valid Claim Form by July 31, 2017. If you received a Postcard Notice in the mail you may file a claim using the detachable Claim Form, or online or by phone using the Claim ID provided on the front of the card. If you did not receive a Postcard Notice in the mail, you may print a Claim Form from www.PratherWellsFargoTCPA.com and mail it to the address on the form. Claim Forms are also available by calling 844-363-2463. If you don't want a payment from this Settlement, and you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Wells Fargo on your own about the legal issues in this case, then you must request exclusion from the Settlement by sending a letter to the Claims Administrator by June 30, 2017. The letter requesting exclusion must contain the information set forth in the full Notice and in the Settlement Agreement, both are available at www.PratherWellsFargoTCPA.com. Unless you exclude yourself, you are choosing to stay in the Settlement and you are releasing Wells Fargo from the legal claims resolved by this Settlement. The Released Claims are described in full in the Settlement Agreement. If you don't exclude yourself, you can object to any part of the Settlement. You must file your objection with the Court and mail it to Class Counsel and Counsel for Wells Fargo by June 30, 2017. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you choose to do nothing, you will not receive a payment, you will be bound by the Settlement, and you will release Wells Fargo from the legal claims in this case. The Court will hold a hearing on August 30, 2017 to decide whether to approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and Class Representative service awards. You may attend, but it is not required. If you wish to hire your own attorney, you may do so at your own expense. For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement Agreement, visit www.PratherWellsFargoTCPA.com. [GN] * Congressman Trey Gowdy Supports Class Action Reform Bill ---------------------------------------------------------- Palmetto Business Daily reports that Congressman Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, has offered his strong support for legislation that aims to curb what sponsors argue are abusive practices related to class action lawsuits. The U.S. House passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act in March, and it is now with the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee. Its main provisions include setting limits on recoveries for victims; requiring that class actions consist of members with the same type and scope of injury; and mandating that those with lesser injuries file separate actions. "Class action lawsuits provide a level playing field for both consumers and businesses to settle disputes," Mr. Gowdy told Palmetto Business Daily. "The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act ensures Americans have the opportunity to resolve their grievances through our civil litigation system while simultaneously providing judges with the discretion they need to protect equal access to justice. " The congressman, who voted for the bill, praised Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) for introducing it "and for his steadfast commitment to a fair and transparent justice system." The bill will now be considered by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is a member. In response to questions from Palmetto Business Daily asking for the senator's position on the bill, Graham's press spokesman, Kevin Bishop, said, "It hasn't come up yet." Mr. Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said class action lawsuits "were supposed to provide a level playing field for both consumers and businesses, so their issues could be settled in a just and fair system." "Sadly, because of abuses by unscrupulous trial lawyers, many Americans now see class action lawsuits as a television commercial, a hotline, and a cottage industry where lawyers win and victims lose," Mr. Goodlatte said in a statement following the passage of the bill in the House. Mr. Goodlatte claimed trial lawyers are exploiting loopholes in a previous bill he authored more than 10 years ago, the Class Action Fairness Act. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush. "We are giving judges the tools they need to keep abusive practices out of our courts, and to prevent further exploitation of victims by trial lawyers who wish to line their pockets," the congressman said. The bill also contains additional provisions prohibiting judges from approving class actions in which the lawyer representing the class is a relative of a party in the class action suit; requiring class action lawyers only receive payment after victims are paid; and ordering that any third-party funding agreement be disclosed to the court. It also contains provisions relating to asebestos bankruptcy trusts, which were set up to manage the disbursement of awards in those cases. The bill orders increased transparency. [GN] * DOL's Fiduciary Rule Spurs Changes Despite Implementation Delay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Finkle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that more than six years have passed since the U.S. Department of Labor first rolled out its fiduciary rule for the retirement industry, but whether that rule becomes effective in early June, as now planned, still remains uncertain. Despite the delay, analysts say the mere threat of the federal rule going live -- along with a decade of class action litigation -- already has wrought changes to an industry more in the public view than ever before. As the attorneys who represent companies parse the fine print to ensure legal compliance should the rule stand, some observers predict many companies will adopt stricter standards for a simpler reason: good business. "The cat's out of the bag," said Stephen McCaffrey, board chairman of the Chicago-based Plan Sponsor Council of America. "People, their eyes are open about the things that they have to ask for and look at. They recognize that it's their money and they need to ask questions." It doesn't mean Republicans aren't pushing back. President Donald Trump in February ordered the agency to re-examine the rule, which was due to go into effect in April but was delayed until early June. The regulation was designed to extend fiduciary responsibilities to a wider universe of people providing retirement advice. Financial firms and their attorneys are scrambling to keep pace with its evolution in Washington, though experts note that the policy fight of the past half dozen years has already had a significant impact on the industry. Indeed, the landscape for handling retirement accounts has been transformed in recent years -- and many analysts expect a number of those changes to stick. A series of class action lawsuits hatched over the past decade are credited with significantly reducing fees associated with 401(k) plans and with ensuring that the interests of employees and retirees come first in the management of those plans. At the same time, the DOL's measure has put the term "fiduciary" squarely in public view -- bringing with it attention from consumers that may spur many companies to broadly comply with the new standard, regardless of its official status. "There's a higher level of care throughout the industry," said Marcia Wagner of Wagner Law Group in Boston, who specializes in employee benefits law. Regulatory Uncertainty For those in the retirement industry, the next key date to watch is June 9, when the first components of the DOL rule are now planned to take effect. While there's still considerable uncertainty around its final fate -- including whether controversial parts or even the whole rule is reversed -- attorneys are advising clients to move forward with compliance, assuming the date will stand. "Are companies gearing up to comply with June 9? Yes, they are," said Kent Mason, a partner at Davis & Harman in Washington who specializes in retirement savings. "People have to assume, at least for now, that what's in the document is final. Obviously, it can change, but I don't think people can count on that for compliance purposes." The delay notice hinted that financial advisers and others impacted should take the date seriously, suggesting that it would be "inappropriate" to "broadly delay" implementation of the new definition for fiduciary advice and its best interest standard "in disregard of its previous findings of ongoing injury to retirement investors." But here are some analysts who doubt that the entire rule will survive intact. "In some ways, this is career staff slow-walking the execution order of a rule they crafted," said Edward Mills, a policy analyst at FBR Capital Markets based in Arlington, Virginia, particularly given that the delay language was finalized without a Trump-appointed labor secretary in place. (At press time, the president's nominee, Alexander Acosta, was approved by a U.S. Senate panel but not by the full Senate, though he is likely to be confirmed.) "To me, the important thing is, what does the Trump administration and the Republican Congress want to do? They don't want this rule to go into effect," Mr. Mills said, predicting that the most likely outcome remains "a series of short-term delays that are ultimately going to lead to a long-term delay, a revoking of the rule or a fundamental rewriting of the rule." A spokesman for the Department of Labor did not respond to requests for comment on its review of the rule. Still, while companies scramble to keep pace with the latest developments regarding the regulation, observers said that some advisers and brokers may adopt the stricter fiduciary standard voluntarily in order to differentiate themselves from competitors. With so many firms working for a year or longer to put the fiduciary rule into place, the regulation already has prompted significant changes in the retirement industry. "There's a lot more focus on compensation arrangements and different fee structures," said Seth Safra, a partner at Proskauer Rose in Washington who focuses on employee benefits and executive compensation. "No matter what happens, the awareness is not going to go away. Just from a competitive perspective, service providers are looking at this and saying, 'Maybe we can use some of this to our advantage to distinguish ourselves in the marketplace.'" That's due in part to the widespread publicity the rule has garnered, which extends far beyond the nation's capital. Plaintiffs' Bar Action One of the most contentious fights over the fiduciary rule involves how much potential legal liability those covered under the measure will have to assume under the regulation. Morningstar Inc. analyst Michael Wong estimated in February that class action litigation stemming from the rule could cost the industry $150 million annually -- or even more in the early years -- among those selling commission-based products under one of the rule's exemptions. The brokerage industry doesn't have to look far to see the threats that such liability can bring, as a handful of plaintiff's firms has filed dozens of cases against employers for breach of fiduciary duty in recent years with respect to the management of employee 401(k) plans. "The risk of fiduciary lawsuits is very significant," said Mr. Safra. "All of the 401(k) litigation that's going on right now is enough to see why one would be scared about that, even where the fiduciaries have had some success" in defending themselves. Defined-contribution plans have been replacing traditional pensions since the 1980s, but oversight of the programs and their management failed to garner much attention in those early years. One firm, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, began pursuing cases in the mid-2000s against employers that, it argued, were allowing participants to be charged excessive fees, including cases where those fees presented a conflict of interest or the possibility of self-dealing for the companies involved. "What existed was a system in a dark closet," said Jerome Schlichter, founding and managing partner of the St. Louis-based firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton, who's been leading the class action fight against 401(k) plan sponsors. Dozens of cases have since been filed by the firm and others, and Schlichter has been credited with helping to reduce overall 401(k) record keeping fees by an estimated $2.8 billion per year. He's secured a number of high-profile settlements, including a $62 million deal with Lockheed Martin Corp. in 2015, the largest to date. Just two of the cases have gone to trial so far, and both continue to wind their way through the courts after more than a decade. Schlichter called the effort to bring the litigation "an intense battle." Plan sponsors "know that actions that they may have taken in the past that they thought were responsible are going to be scrutinized much more carefully," said Mark Hess, a partner at Fox Rothschild in Los Angeles, who focuses on employee benefits law. Still, he noted, the enhanced scrutiny that's come with the threat of lawsuits could motivate plan sponsors to become overly cautious in their management. "Judgment is going to be impaired somewhat by the fact that they're always looking over their shoulders -- how can my actions be interpreted five years from now?" Mr. Hess added. Going forward, it appears that plaintiff's firms may be looking to raise the bar even higher for companies managing a 401(k) plan. Charles Humphrey, an attorney for Fiduciary Plan Governance, a Newbury, Massachusetts-based consultancy, points to a handful of cases filed over the past two years that further probe the actions taken by plan sponsors with respect to their fiduciary duties, digging into the performance and design of certain investments. Such cases indicate that "the plaintiff's bar is trying to delve into the weaknesses of particular employee benefit plans to see if they can exploit those weaknesses," Mr. Humphrey said, though it's unclear at this point whether the new efforts will be successful. These trends will be crucial to watch for organizations of all kinds. Company executives who take on a fiduciary role are personally liable under the law -- breaching those duties willfully can lead to significant fines and even jail time. And yet, experts say, many fiduciaries still don't necessarily understand the extent of the responsibilities involved in managing a firm's 401(k) plan. "A lot of these people are volunteered into the position," said PSCA's McCaffrey. "Their duty of loyalty is solely to the participants and the beneficiaries -- and they need to know, when they walk into a fiduciary meeting, they have to shed their company hat." The combination of the pending federal fiduciary rule and the heightened risks associated with class action lawsuits have pushed plan managers, advisers and other players to pay closer attention to implementation and oversight of retirement savings accounts. Whether or not the Labor Department ultimately decides to rescind the intensely debated regulation, those broader changes are unlikely to dissipate. "There was a huge lack of understanding, and I think the entire industry -- from plan sponsors to plan vendors -- is evolving," said Wagner. "People now understand that this is a serious responsibility." * FDA Calories Labeling Rule Carries Legal Risks for Food Chains ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Dayton Klein, writing for StarTribune, reports that consumers rolling up to drive-throughs may have noticed the calorie counts at fast food chains in recent years. And soon, consumers can expect to start seeing calories on display at additional restaurants and food venues. The reason stems from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules that the agency was slated to start enforcing on May 5, but just recently delayed until May 2018. This rule means certain restaurants will need to include calories on their menus or face penalties starting next year. And while many large chains are already displaying calories -- including the Minnesota-made chains such as Dairy Queen and Dunn Brothers -- the new rules pose significant changes and hurdles for newer or medium-sized chains. Why calories and why now? This federal effort to give consumers more food information follows a trend at the state and local level dating back over a decade. There's long been a push to provide consumers with more information about the food they eat, in the hopes of promoting healthier lifestyles. At first, many in the restaurant industry fought these regulations, noting compliance was expensive and fearing calorie count displays might hurt demand. However, as these laws rolled out across the country and as data rolled in showing marginal change in consumer behavior, restaurants switched to favoring a federal standard, rather than face a patchwork of laws and regulations. As a result, the Affordable Care Act authorized the FDA to set the rules, which were implemented in 2015, giving the restaurants a few years to come into compliance before the start of enforcement. Who is affected? Restaurants, coffee shops and other "covered establishments" (such as delis and buffets found in grocery and convenience stores) with 20 or more national locations under the same or similar brand, or under common ownership, must follow these rules. Restaurants with fewer than 20 locations may also opt to register to be governed by the FDA rules. This may be an appealing option for smaller chains that want to be subject to just one set of standards, rather than several different standards in different cities and states. What are the rules? The FDA rules require venues to disclose several pieces of information to consumers and certify the information is correct. First, menus must show the calories of the items that are routinely offered. There is an exception for items that appear periodically and for menu items that are being test marketed. Second, restaurants must make additional nutrition information -- such as fat, protein, carbohydrates, sodium and the like -- available upon request. Also, restaurants must certify that the calories they display match the calories in the food that is served. It is unclear what shape FDA enforcement will take. The agency has indicated it is still working on an enforcement plan and the precise penalties. They have hinted at partnering with state and local officials to enforce these regulations, particularly in places that already had menu-labeling rules in effect. Once enforcement begins in May 2018, inspectors will likely visit stores and ask to see caloric and nutritional information. They also might ask for certifications about the accuracy of the calories disclosed on the menus and about the precision of following the recipes. Operating challenges Restaurants that must display calories face some operational and legal challenges. For example, costs of menu redesign and printing can be steep, and it can be challenging to display the calories in a conspicuous way while maintaining aesthetic aspirations. Also, adding items to the menu is now more complicated than just adding the item to the list. The item will need to be evaluated for calories and other nutritional information before it can go on the menu. Further complicating the mix, the rules require each restaurant location to certify that it follows the recipes for the items closely to ensure that the calories in the food served match the calories displayed. This can be challenging to manage consistency for chains with many locations. Displaying calories also carries some legal risk. Particularly, there is a potential for consumer class action groups to test food items to see if they match the calories displayed. Recently, Chipotle was sued in California for having inaccurate calorie counts for its chorizo burrito. These cautionary tales should keep businesses vigilant in ensuring consistent production of food items to match the calorie count on display. Guidance for compliance Restaurant chains subject to these rules need to revise menus to disclose calories, as well as update websites in cases where customers can place orders online. Running any potential changes by an attorney with experience in these issues will also help restaurants make sure their investment in these changes add value to their business while minimizing legal risk. Bon appetit! Julia Dayton Klein is a principal at Minneapolis-based Gray Plant Mooty. * New NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra May Undo Pro-Union Changes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Higgins, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that Philip Miscimarra, the new chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, is poised to be the Antonin Scalia of workplace law, business and labor experts say. Like the late Supreme Court justice, he believes that the only thing that matters is what the text of the law explicitly says. Also like Scalia, he has penned a string of vigorous, sometimes acerbic dissents to his colleagues' rulings. He will have the opportunity to roll back the board's recent, mainly pro-union changes now that President Trump has put him in charge of the nation's main federal labor law enforcement agency -- a prospect that has business groups cheering and labor advocates gloomy. "The fact that he is chairman is encouraging. This is an opportunity to restore some common sense to labor law," said Glenn Spencer, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Workforce Freedom Initiative. The chamber doggedly fought the board under former President Barack Obama. Labor advocates scoff at the notion that the board overreached under Obama. "The idea that you cannot look at the developments in the workplace and how it has changed over the past 80 years when it comes to interpreting the law is absurd," said Joshua Parkhurst, a New York labor rights attorney. Nevertheless, it will be a while before Miscimarra can assert himself. Although chairman, he is still in the minority because the other two current board members, Mark Pearce and Lauren McFerran, are Democrats. He will have to wait until Trump nominates and the Senate confirms two Republicans to fill the remaining open seats. Miscimarra was a lawyer in private practice in Chicago when he was picked by Obama in 2013 to fill an open Republican seat on the Democratic-majority board. At the time, the board, long a little- known federal backwater, was just beginning to assert itself as a major force by rewriting workplace law. In dissents that were often far longer than the majority's rulings, Miscimarra regularly argued the board was exceeding the authority Congress had given it. The board's other Republican, Harry Johnson, whose term expired in 2015, usually joined him. That stance was perhaps most clear in a 2014 case called Murphy Oil. The board majority said the National Labor Relations Act gave it the right to invalidate class-action waivers that employers required workers to sign. The labor act couldn't do that, Miscimarra countered, because it was written before class actions existed. "It defies reason to suggest that Congress, in 1935, incorporated into the NLRA a guarantee that non-NLRA claims will be afforded 'class' treatment when there was no uniformity then -- nor is there now -- regarding what 'class' treatment even means," he said. He made a similar argument in 2015's Browning Ferris, one of the board's most notable rulings. The case involved when one business became a "joint employer" of another company's workers and therefore legally responsible for any violations of workplace laws. Previously, a business had to have "direct control" over the workers to be considered a joint employer, but the labor board expanded that to the much vaguer "indirect control." Miscimarra was one of the controversial ruling's biggest critics. "No bargaining table is big enough to seat all of the entities that will be potential joint employers under the majority's new standards. In this regard, we believe the majority's new test impermissibly exceeds our statutory authority," he wrote. Steve Bernstein, a management-side attorney with the Tampa law firm Fisher & Phillips, points to Miscimarra's dissents in the various cases the labor board has taken up about employer policies toward social media such as Facebook as another area where Miscimarra has pointed out that the Labor Relations Act is simply silent. "It is increasingly hard for the NLRB to argue that the people who wrote the law would have done the same thing that the board is doing right now," Bernstein said. Like Scalia's, some of Miscimarra's dissents could be quite scathing. When in a 2016 joint employer case involving McDonald's Corp. the board denied the company the right to subpoena certain documents for its defense, Miscimarra compared it to a person being denied the opportunity to say they killed in self-defense. "If a person accused of murder maintains he was acting in self- defense, evidence that he was being attacked is obviously relevant," he wrote. After the board instituted a new rule speeding up the scheduling of workplace elections, a change that unions applauded, Miscimarra slammed the majority's "preoccupation with speed" in a February case called European Imports. The sped-up process "extinguishes the employees' right to have a reasonable period of time to become familiar with election issues," he said. All those comments point to Miscimarra pulling the board back from its current activist period into something closer to status quo that prevailed prior to Obama, observers say. Miscimarra is also apparently a sci-fi nerd. In a 2016 case called American Baptist Homes of the West he said the majority's opinion was wrong because the law "does not require parties to maintain Spock-like objectivity." In a footnote he explained, "Mr. Spock - - a main character in the well-known television and movie series Star Trek -- was perhaps best known for his (largely successful) efforts to suppress emotion . . . However, even Spock, who had a human mother, experienced a 'strained and often turbulent' relationship with his Vulcan father." * OSC's Whistleblower Program Faces Criticism --------------------------------------------- Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that will financial rewards to whistleblowers from the OSC help or hinder companies from complying with securities laws? On the way to her office one morning in early March, Nadia Campion -- ncampion@polleyfaith.com -- glanced up at the digital display in the elevator she had just entered and noticed an ad for a snitch program that has caused more than one client to pick up the phone and call her. It was a promotion from the Ontario Securities Commission's Office of the Whistleblower: "Know of a company breaking securities law? We want to hear from you." Ms. Campion, a partner at Polley Faith LLP in Toronto, says she has questioned whether the prospect of financial rewards will have an impact on the number of whistleblowers who come forward, the quality of the information and the seriousness of the conduct reported. But in a January article published by the New York School of Law on the topic, 2016 was heralded as a "banner year" for the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission's whistleblower programs. "The stats look pretty favourable to the regulators," she says. "In my view, I think that financial rewards are likely the best way forward for regulators, and in any event, the criteria for obtaining a financial reward are difficult to satisfy -- they provide a good counterweight to the concerns expressed by critics and act as a strong gatekeeper to prevent the misuse of the whistleblower program," says Ms. Campion. The OSC's whistleblower program was introduced in July 2016 and offers financial rewards of up to $5 million to those who voluntarily come forward with information -- provided, of course, that they satisfy certain eligibility criteria and that the information submitted is of real assistance to the OSC and results in monetary sanctions of $1 million or more. The rewards promised are potentially much less, but the program is somewhat similar to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission program created in 2011, as a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis. So far, the SEC has paid out US$149 million to 41 whistleblowers. In January, the SEC announced an award of $7 million to be split between three whistleblowers who helped the SEC prosecute an investment scheme. In the Ontario program, individuals who participate in the misconduct reported are also eligible for a financial reward. In addition to financial rewards, whistleblowers to the OSC are promised various protections, including that the OSC will use all reasonable efforts to keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential. And, employers of whistleblowers are strictly prohibited from taking any retaliatory measures. By late September, the OSC reported it had received more than 30 "credible" tips reporting potential violations of securities laws such as mistakes in accounting and disclosure violations. Critics of the OSC whistleblower program argue that providing financial rewards will give rise to an "American-style bounty program" and may lead to individuals coming forward with incomplete or misleading information that may implicate others for nefarious or monetary motives. Also, giving wrongdoers financial rewards may be contrary to the jurisdiction's common law tradition that one should not profit from their crimes. John Tuzyk -- john.tuzyk@blakes.com -- partner at Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, says whistleblower programs with cash rewards represent the "continuing evolution" of the privatization of securities law enforcement that started with securities class actions. "You pay people to come forward with complaints and then class action lawyers bring secondary market claims: It's a market-driven privatized system," he says. Mr. Tuzyk argues the whistleblower program creates disincentives for anyone to use internal reporting programs and mechanisms that companies were already required to set up under the existing national rules. This means that corporations and employers lose control of the disclosure and internal investigation process, which could be problematic. "Essentially, individuals with evidence of wrongdoing may jump the queue to the detriment of the corporation/employer and may make it difficult for such entities to defend themselves or at least manage the process," Ms. Campion says. Ms. Campion says these criticisms "have had some traction." Last summer, Quebec's Autorite des marches financiers introduced its new whistleblower program, which does not provide any financial rewards, and Alberta's regulators have announced they have opted to go with a no-rewards-for-tips whistleblower policy. In the face of all this, Ms. Campion says, corporations, with the assistance of their in-house legal teams, should create a culture of reporting internally without fear of retaliation and develop a concrete framework for addressing allegations made by whistleblowers. "As I recently said to one in-house lawyer on the topic: 'In the absence of an effective internal reporting process, whistleblowers will contact the OSC directly, particularly if they will be paid for their tips.'" Ms. Campion says the cash-for-information whistleblower program creates a big risk for companies that don't have robust reporting programs or the right culture and incentives provided to employees to report internally first. Instead, the incentive now is to go to the OSC. Academically, she says, the conclusions drawn elsewhere, such as in Quebec and Europe, seem to suggest the financial reporting doesn't improve the quality of information reported. However, the stats in the U.S. from the SEC seem to suggest they are getting a lot of tips. "Ultimately, what companies and their in-house lawyers want to do is control the process," says Ms. Campion. Barbara Hendrickson of BAX Securities Law says internal reporting policies and the OSC's whistleblower program don't have to be inconsistent with each other. If an issuer has a robust internal policy, they can potentially deal with issues before they are escalated to the OSC, and most public companies will have a program in their own code of business ethics. "It's a big step to go to the OSC, for anyone," says Ms. Hendrickson. "If people felt there were internal procedures in place and their concerns would receive a fair hearing and there would be no retaliation, then they might be more likely to go internally. I guess the only caveat is how serious it is -- that may affect a whisteblower's confidence in the internal control system." Ms. Campion does agree a financial rewards program is probably better than what Quebec and Alberta have. From a regulator's perspective, it increases the chance they will come across good and reliable information as opposed to a program where there is no financial incentive. "I do think there is a good balance when you read the various policies of the OSC and what they will consider in terms of giving a financial reward," she says. In Ontario, general counsel can also be whistleblowers, which Campion says calls into question whether an in-house lawyer would be offside their solicitor-client privilege obligations. If someone made an internal complaint and the company dealt with it internally, there is an existing policy on companies getting "credit for co-operation." The OSC Staff Notice 15-702 Credit for Cooperation program was revised in 2014 and addresses self- disclosure and expectations from market participants in such a situation. However, how it actually works in practical terms is somewhat of a mystery to some in the securities bar. They would like the OSC to be more transparent about what happens when people have self-disclosed under the Credit for Cooperation program or fixed a problem that was detected and then disclosed. Some have asked for examples where the OSC has applied the policy and what some of the fact patterns were when it has been applied. "There is less information than would ultimately be out there, ideally," says Danielle Royal, partner with Stikeman Elliott LLP. She says there should be more transparency in this area. "If you think about compliance as a tool box, the whistleblower program is just one piece of it. We know the enforcement authority doesn't have the resources to track everything, so I think it's in everyone's interest to provide incentives to the companies to do their own internal reviews and enforcement." Royal says she understands the rationale for a whistleblower program, but she says it will be "a more interesting conversation to have in a year" to see if the OSC has struck the right balance. [GN] * Use of Pelvic Mesh Subject of Senate Inquiry in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------- Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that a woman who launched a campaign to support women victims of pelvic mesh and hold Australian health regulators to account has won two awards for consumer health advocacy. Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group founder Caz Chisholm received the Western Australian Health Consumers Council health consumers award and the Rosemary Caithness Award for outstanding service to health consumers after a campaign, supported by the Newcastle Herald, for a Senate inquiry into pelvic mesh. Ms Chisholm's group jumped from 39 members in early 2015 to more than 600 by April 27 when she received the awards, only days before International Mesh Awareness Day on May 1. The day was initiated by mesh support groups in countries including Australia, America, New Zealand, Great Britain and European countries including the Netherlands. In America alone more than 125,000 women have initiated legal action against mesh manufacturers after they were implanted with transvaginal mesh (surgery through the vagina rather than the abdomen) after post-childbirth complications. An American woman was awarded $20 million compensation for complications after mesh surgery in 2007 using a Johnson & Johnson transvaginal mesh. In Australia 450 women have joined a class action against Johnson & Johnson, another 350 women have joined a class action against a second American device manufacturer, and more than 1000 women in total have complained of serious injuries after mesh surgery. Ms Chisholm said she was "thrilled and honored to receive these awards as this represents the acknowledgement of all women suffering from the devastating effects of mesh". "What we seek first and foremost is recognition of our pain and suffering because most of us have been ignored by doctors, and when we do present with complications we are told they are caused by anything other than mesh," Ms Chisholm said. "Yet when women join the support group and they read about the same complications as others, they breathe a sign of relief and often cry because finally they have the recognition that they are not imagining their pain and they are not going crazy. "They realise their pain is real and their pain is from mesh." Western Australian Health Consumers Council executive director Pip Brennan said Ms Chisholm's double win of the two most prestigious consumer health awards recognised her tireless advocacy for mesh victims and outstanding work on giving them a voice. "The use of mesh is now the subject of a federal Senate inquiry, which is taking submissions until May 31, and the inquiry's title is 'Number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters'. This highlights that we simply don't know how many women have had these implants, and how many of them have suffered complications," Ms Brennan said. "Caz Chisholm has spent significant time and energy raising awareness for women about the issue and providing essential peer support. She was also directly responsible for ensuring that the Senate inquiry was successfully advocated by Senator Derryn Hinch." In 2016 Australia's peak health regulator for medical devices, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, quietly placed on its website a list of at least 30 known complications following pelvic mesh surgery, after TGA executives met with Ms Chisholm and other support group members. The complications include punctures of vessels, nerves, structures or organs including the bladder, urethra or bowel; foreign body response including erosion of mesh into the vagina, bladder or bowel; chronic infections; acute or chronic pain; pain during intercourse; temporary or permanent inability to void via the lower urinary tract; bleeding; chronic pain in the groin, thigh, leg or abdomen; atypical vaginal discharge; exposed mesh may cause pain to the patient's partner during intercourse and abscess. ********* 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *