/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170607.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 113 Headlines AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Still Faces Class Suits on Service Quality AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wippman Sues Over Cancelled & Delayed Flights ANGIE'S LIST: Administering Settlement in "Moore" Case ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied ANGIE'S LIST: Discovery Ongoing in "Crabtree" Case APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits Final Approval of "Moses" Suit Deal APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defending Against Wilchfort, et al. Suit ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Arroyo Claims ASSURANT INC: Still Faces Lender-Placed Insurance Programs Suits AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Underway BASIN CREEK: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BH/IGF HIDDEN: "Steiner-Out" Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. BIOGEN INC: First Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit BODY & SOUL: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in "Brown" Suit BOFI HOLDING: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Action BUFFALO TRACE: Bid to Transfer "Penrose" to W.D. Ky. Denied CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Still Defends Class Suit in Kentucky CARMAX INC: 3 Calif. Sales Consultants Class Suits Still Ongoing CATHAY LOGISTICS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Arevalo Claims CENTENE CORP: Federal Securities Class Action Moved to Missouri CHINA UNICOM: Braces for Potential Securities Class Action Suit CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Still Defends Stockholders' Class Action Suit CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: 2nd Case Status Report Due September 21 COMPLETE WIRING: Faces "Morse" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime COREPOWER YOGA: Osterholt's Classes Certified; Hearing on June 29 CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Faces "Kloker" Suit in D. Mont. CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Hearing This Month on Class Action Appeal DENTSPLY SIRONA: Florida Prosthodontics Alleges TCPA Violation E. I. DU PONT: Medical Monitoring Registration in W.Va. Ongoing EDWARD PRODUCE: Faces "Arias" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ENERGY RECOVERY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 24 ENERGY TRANSFER: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Not Yet Set ENHANCED DRILLING: Faces "Guillotte" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to E.D. Va. ERJ DINING: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Against "Dougherty" Suit EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Unit Still Defends Jerry Beeman Case in Calif. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2 Antitrust Class Suits vs. Unit Remain Pending EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Defends Firefighters' Pension Fund Case EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Consolidated Class Suit on ERISA Breach Ongoing EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Analog Insulin Products Class Action Continues FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Class Suit to Begin Oct. 23 FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Stock Reclassification Case to Begin Sept. FARMLAND MUTUAL: California Court Trims ERISA Suit FCA US: Can Recover Costs Over Protective Order Violation FIREEYE INC: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement FOMENTO ECONOMICO: Sao Paolo Solid Waste Class Action Underway FUN BUFFET: "Han" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GATESTONE & CO: Class Certification Sought in "Ballaj" Suit GLOBUS MEDICAL: Appeal in Silverstein Litigation Underway GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martin" Suit Claims HELIX ENERGY: Securities Case Plaintiff Didn't Amend Complaint HONDA NORTH: Faces "Merkin" Suit Over Defective Starter System HONEST & QUALITY: "Park" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HOUSTON, TX: Kohr Seeks to Certify Homeless Class IBM CORP: Retirement Plans Committee Still Defends ERISA Lawsuit ICU MEDICAL: Hospira Units Face Class Suit on IV Saline Solution INDIANA, USA: Hines Moves to Certify Class of Disabled Prisoners INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Expired J SALERNO & SON: Gonzalez's Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part JIAO CONSULTING: "Arrazola" Suit Alleges Non-Payment of Wages JIVE SOFTWARE: "Chun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Wave Merger KCG HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Proposed Sale to Virtu Financial KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Objects to Punitive Damages in Halyard Case KINDER MORGAN: Court Denies Calif. Landowners' Class Status Bid KINDER MORGAN: Wisconsin Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing LINEBARGER GOGGAN: "Hoy" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif. LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to be Completed by November 30 MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Says "Lennen" Suit in Early Stages MDL 1720: Interchange Multidistrict Lawsuit vs. Visa Ongoing METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Bid to Dismiss "Kerpen" Suit Granted MISSION-HOPE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MISSOURI, USA: Endicott Moves to Certify Class of NCC Inmates MOCON INC: Faces "Ellebracht" Lawsuit Over Ametek Merger MY SIZE: Response to Lightcom's Class Status Bid Due Sept. 2 NEAL TRUCKING: Final Approval of "Poisson" Suit Settlement Sought NEW RESIDENTIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action NEW YORK HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ikramov Says NUVASIVE INC: Dec. Trial Set for Securities Class Status Appeal PBF ENERGY: Appeal by Chalmette Refining and Eaton Still Pending PBF ENERGY: Still Defends "Goldstein" Suit in California PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Certify Marlboro Light Smoker's Suit Denied PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Consolidated Investor Class Action PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Class Actions on Calif. Labor Laws PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Dismissed PROCORP LLC: Faces "Harris" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation QUALCOMM INC: "Mackay" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif. QUALCOMM INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif. RANDOLPH CTY, AL: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Strader" Parties Proceeding with Discovery REDDY ICE: July 24 Hearing on QSF Distribution Process ROYAL LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees SAFE STREETS: Faces "Collins" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation SEPHORA USA: "Ye" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval SIGNAL FINANCE: Faces "Castros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation SILVER BAY: Defending Class Suits over Tricon Merger Plan SNAP INC: Faces "Simpson" Suit Over Misleading IPO Reports SPARK ENERGY: Faces "Rolland" Suit in New Jersey SQUARE INC: Settlement Awaits Arbitrator's Final Approval SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit on Coupon Market Conspiracy Ongoing SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Class Lawsuit on 2003 C&S Transaction SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Computer Network Intrusion Class Suit T ROWE PRICE: Potential Class Action on ERISA Breaches Underway TOTAL CARD: New Jersey Court Dismisses "Judah" Suit TOWN OF BROOKLINE: Faces "Baez" Suit in District Court Mass. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces "Dittman" Class Action TOYOTA MOTORS: Reply to "Robey" Complaint Continued to July 10 TRC COMPANIES: Faces "Delarue" Lawsuit Over New Mountain Merger TREEHOUSE FOODS: Shareholder Class Suits Underway TROPICAL FALLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Guerra" Suit Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over False Actual Fare Description UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Lawsuits UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Veliz and Aguilar Sue for OT Pay UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "Daugherty" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation VEREIT INC: Status Conference Held in American Realty Litigation VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners Case Remains Pending VIACOM INC: New Directors Dismissed from Class Suit VISA INC: Settlement Reached in Merchant Class Suit in Canada VISA INC: Proceedings on EMV Chip Liability Shift Still Ongoing WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY: Williams Seeks Class Action Certification WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Finish Consumer Claims Process in 2017 WOOD GROUP: Fenley Moves for Certification of 3 Workers Classes WORLD GYM: Kim Sues Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer WPX ENERGY: 2nd Motion for Class Certification Pending YIRENDAI LTD: Still Defends ADS Consolidated Class Action ZAGG INC: Stotz-Charles Suit v. mophie Underway ********* AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Still Faces Class Suits on Service Quality -------------------------------------------------------------- America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V.'s principal brand in Mexico for wireless voice and data services, Telcel, continues to face class action lawsuits regarding the brand's quality of service, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor, or "Profeco") initiated a proceeding before Mexican courts in 2011 on behalf of customers who alleged deficiencies in the quality of Telcel's network in 2010 and breach of customer agreements. This proceeding is still pending and if resolved in favor of Profeco, Telcel's customers would be entitled to compensation for damages. Telcel was also subject to four class actions lawsuits initiated by customers allegedly affected by Telcel's quality of service and wireless and broadband rates. One of the lawsuits, filed in Mexico City, was recently dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiffs had filed two practically identical lawsuits, leaving three class action lawsuits that are still pending. America Movil said, "The Company does not currently have enough information on these proceedings to determine whether any of the remaining three class action lawsuits could have an adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations in the event that they are resolved against Telcel. Consequently, the Company has not established a provision in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a loss arising from these proceedings." America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. provides telecommunications services in Mexico and internationally. The Company sells its products and services through a network of retailers and service centers to retail customers; and through sales force to corporate customers. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 2000 and is based in Mexico City, Mexico. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wippman Sues Over Cancelled & Delayed Flights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Wippman, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Airlines Inc., Case No. 2017-CH- 07281 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 23, 2017), seeks to provide compensation to the Class of passengers with confirmed reservation on Flight AA 87, which was scheduled to depart from Heathrow airport on April 18, 2015, but whose flights were cancelled and or delayed by more than three hours. American Airlines Inc. is an airline company operating primarily from ten "hubs" within the United States, including Chicago- O'Hare, and serves over 5 million passengers per year. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick M. Jones, Esq. PMJ PLLC 100 South State Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312)255-7976 Facsimile: (312) 277-3341 E-mail: pmj@patjonesPLLC.com - and - Colin H. Dunn, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES P.C. 120 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312)899-9090 Facsimile: (312) 251-1160 E-mail: chd@cliffordlaw.com ANGIE'S LIST: Administering Settlement in "Moore" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company, with the assistance of its third-party settlement administrator, is now in the process of administering the settlement in the case, Moore, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD. On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleged claims for breaches of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or that the payments allegedly impact the service provider letter-grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews about the provider and the provider's place in search- result rankings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was granted in part on August 7, 2015. In particular, the plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment were dismissed from the action. On April 19, 2016, the parties agreed to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. Among other relief, the settlement provided for a cash payment of up to $2,350 to create a fund for the payment of cash to settlement class members and for the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs as approved by the Court. Settlement class members were given the option of sharing in the cash fund or selecting a free period of membership of up to four months depending on the date and length of their membership with Angie's List. The settlement also provided certain prospective relief in the form of enhanced explanations in the Company's membership agreement and in responses to frequently asked questions concerning, among other things, the advertising revenue earned from service providers. The Company recorded a $3,500 contingent liability related to this matter in the first quarter of 2016, and this amount included the estimated cost of the cash fund described above as well as the payment of reasonable notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue the Company would forego as a result of certain class members selecting the option for a free period of membership. On December 12, 2016, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. One class member appealed the order, but the plaintiff settled with the class member, and the class member stipulated to dismiss the appeal. On January 13, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the appeal, and the settlement became final and effective as of that date. The Company, with the assistance of its third-party settlement administrator, is now in the process of administering the settlement. On January 30, 2017, the Company made the above-referenced cash payment into an escrow account to be paid to the class members who selected the cash class benefit, as well as to plaintiffs' counsel. On February 13, 2017, the Company updated its membership agreement and relevant website FAQs to include the above- referenced enhanced explanations regarding advertising revenue earned from service providers. Also, in February 2017, the Company provided instructions on how to redeem membership extensions to the class members who selected the membership extension class benefit. The aforementioned contingent legal liability was subsequently reduced by $671 following completion of the election period for settlement class members during the fourth quarter of 2016. The Company's accrual for this matter was $2,601 and $145 as of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, respectively. Although class members may redeem their membership extension class benefit for up to two years, the Company considers this matter closed. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across the United States. ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification in the case, Williams, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc. On April 20, 2016, a group of former employees filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to pay (i) wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other charges. Six amended complaints were filed, adding additional named plaintiffs, and the Company filed its answer to the sixth amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on June 10, 2016, and the Company filed its response brief in opposition on July 15, 2016. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification on November 30, 2016 but allowed the plaintiffs to refile with a more narrow class definition. On December 9, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for conditional certification. The Company filed its response to the renewed motion on January 6, 2017, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on January 17, 2017. The Court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification on April 28, 2017. The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established any reserve for this matter. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across the United States. ANGIE'S LIST: Discovery Ongoing in "Crabtree" Case -------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Crabtree, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc. On April 20, 2016, three former employees filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to pay (i) wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other charges. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in May 2016, adding one additional Indiana wage statute claim. The Company filed its answer and defenses on June 9, 2016. Discovery with respect to this matter is ongoing. The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established any reserve for this matter. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across the United States. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits Final Approval of "Moses" Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in the case, Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., remains subject to final court approval. As disclosed in the 2016 Form 10-K, on April 22, 2014, Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"), filed a class action against the Company and several individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares under the Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") of Apple Seven, Apple Eight and the Company between July 17, 2007 and February 12, 2014. In January 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation for $5.5 million, which settlement remains subject to final court approval, and was included in accounts payable and other liabilities in the Company's consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, and in transaction and litigation costs in the Company's consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. At this time, no assurance can be given that the proposed settlement will be approved, and therefore the actual loss incurred could be in excess of the amount accrued as of March 31, 2017. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defending Against Wilchfort, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against the case, Wilchfort, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al. On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff Marsha Wilchfort, purportedly a shareholder of Apple REIT Six, Inc. ("Apple Six"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight, filed a class action against, among others, the Company and the former individual directors of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, including Mr. Glade Knight, on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares under Apple Six's, Apple Seven's and Apple Eight's DRIP between July 17, 2007 and December 2012 (in the case of Apple Six shareholders) or June 30, 2013 (in the case of Apple Seven and Apple Eight shareholders). The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges, among other items, breach of contract under Virginia law, tortious interference and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint alleges that the prices at which Plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional shares through the DRIPs were not indicative of the true value of the units of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight. The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and intends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to this proceeding, if any. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States. ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Arroyo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt current and former employees v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., Athens Disposal Company, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC662148 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 8 hours per day and/or more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants own and operate waste collection and recycling company in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (323) 486-2508 Facsimile: (747) 998-1201 E-mail: bsweeney@thesweeneylawfirm.com ASSURANT INC: Still Faces Lender-Placed Insurance Programs Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is a defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases assert a variety of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class actions. "We have participated and may participate in settlements on terms that we consider reasonable given the strength of our defenses and other factors," the Company said. Assurant, Inc. is a holding company whose subsidiaries globally provide risk management solutions in the housing and lifestyle markets, protecting where consumers live and the goods they buy. The Company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "AIZ." AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the third amended complaint in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit. Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of the Company's former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha- Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's judgment, which the Company has opposed. On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of its former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for its TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. On March 2, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint, and the parties have initiated discovery. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. BASIN CREEK: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Orellana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Basin Creek Corporation, Ros & Rol Corporation and Rolando Rosales a/k/a Jose Rolando Rosales, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01380-N (N.D. Tex., May 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2470 Walnut Hill Lane Dallas TX 75229. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq. 5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (214) 420-3366 Facsimile: (214) 206-9802 E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com BH/IGF HIDDEN: "Steiner-Out" Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Kim Steiner-Out on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BH/IGF Hidden Harbour Apartments, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-005159 was removed on April 19, 2017 from the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-60773-BB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle. BH/IGF Hidden Harbour Apartments, LLC offers construction and project management for commercial high-rise buildings, recreational, institutional, and government facilities, public works projects, retail and commercial outlets and commercial office facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Thomas Simmons , Jr., Esq. Varnell and Warwick, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Tel: (352) 753-8600 Fax: (352) 504-3301 The Defendant is represented by: Stefanie Silverman Copelow, Esq. Cole, Scott &Kissane, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 383-9203 Email: stefanie.copelow@csklegal.com - and - S. Jonathan Vine, Esq. Cole Scott &Kissane 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 Esperante Building West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 383-9200 Fax: (561) 683-8977 Email: Jonathan.Vine@csklegal.com BIOGEN INC: First Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 12, 2017, affirmed dismissal of the putative securities class action In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1976. According to Biogen's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, the Company and certain current and former officers are defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, filed by a shareholder on August 18, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The lead plaintiff sought a declaration of the action as a class action, certification as a representative of the class and its counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees. According to an article at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom's Web site, the action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts shortly after Biogen announced that it was revising its full-year 2015 financial guidance downward principally due to slowing growth of the company's multiple sclerosis drug, TECFIDERA. Following that July 2015 announcement, Biogen's share price fell 22 percent (representing an approximately $20 billion market cap decline). The action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against Biogen and certain of its current and former officers. Citing adjective-laden statements from 10 anonymous "confidential witnesses," the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants intentionally misled the investing public regarding the impact on TECFIDERA sales resulting from the company's October 2014 announcement that a patient treated with the drug had died from complications associated with the rare neurological disease progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). On July 1, 2016 the U.S. District Court dismissed the case and in September 2016 denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the order of dismissal. According to the Skadden article, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). In a 72-page opinion, the court observed that the plaintiffs' complaint and brief "gloss[ed] over" Biogen's repeated public disclosures about the impact of the PML event on TECFIDERA's performance and held that the "[d]efendants' warnings about the PML death fall far short of reckless conduct." Weighing competing inferences, the district court held that far more compelling than any inference of fraud is that the "defendants were, at worst, overly optimistic in attempting to predict the PML death's effect on revenues." The district court also held that nearly all of the alleged misstatements were immaterial as a matter of law or protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements. The plaintiff appealed. According to the Skadden article, the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to meet the rigorous pleading standards for allegations of scienter under the PSLRA. In that regard, the First Circuit observed that the statements attributed to confidential witnesses "are so lacking in connecting detail that they cannot give rise to a strong inference of scienter" and that "[t]he statements do not even begin to quantify the magnitude of the sales decline at the company level," nor do they "explain with any precision whether the sales decline resulted from higher discontinuations, fewer new starts, changes in the market, or some combination of these factors." The First Circuit concluded that "the confidential witness statements are consistent with the defendants' public disclosures," which "repeatedly returned to the PML incident as one factor impacting TECFIDERA's performance." Skadden noted that this is the second time in recent years that the First Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a putative securities class action against Biogen. In 2008, the court affirmed dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action filed just days after a different Biogen drug was temporarily and voluntarily withdrawn from the market. N.J. Carpenters Pension & Annuity Funds v. Biogen IDEC Inc., 537 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2008). That case, which the First Circuit described as one that is "paradigmatic of securities fraud cases against drug development companies," was similarly dismissed for failure to plead the requisite strong inference of scienter. Biogen also disclosed in the regulatory filing that the Company and certain current and former officers are defendants in an action filed by another shareholder on October 20, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts related to the matter described above. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and seeks a declaration of the action as a class action and an award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees. Biogen Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers therapies for the treatment of neurological and autoimmune diseases worldwide. It offers products through its sales force and marketing groups. The Company was formerly known as Biogen Idec Inc. and changed its name to Biogen Inc. in March 2015. Biogen Inc. was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. BODY & SOUL: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in "Brown" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert G. James granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action classes and to facilitate notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit entitled MARGARITE SAMPSON BROWN, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. BODY & SOUL SERVICES, INC., DERENDA FLOWERS, AND SHEILA GREEN, Case No. 3:16-cv-00824- RGJ-KLH (W.D. La.). To the extent that the Plaintiff moves to certify the two FLSA collective actions, the Motion is granted, Judge James opined. However, Judge James added, the Late Payment Class is subject to the temporal limitation proposed by Defendants. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint or unopposed motion for approval of notices and opt-in forms within 14 days. Within that same period, the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiff with the names and mailing addresses for the prospective members of the collective action classes. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vyZZxJHl BOFI HOLDING: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- BofI Holding, Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated securities class action and related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case"). On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. The Class Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Mandalevy Case"). The complaints filed in the Golden Case, the Hazan Case, and the Mandalevy Case allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful conduct that is alleged in a complaint that was filed in a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter"), and that as a result the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class Action, the Mandalevy Case, and in the Employment Matter, as well as those plaintiffs' statement of the underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously defending each case. In addition to the Class Action, two separate shareholder derivative actions were filed in December 2015, purportedly on behalf of the Company. The first derivative action, Calcaterra v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 3, 2015. The second derivative action, Dow v. Micheletti, et al, was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court on December 16, 2015. A third derivative action, DeYoung v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 22, 2016, a fourth derivative action, Yong v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 29, 2016, and a fifth derivative action, Laborers Pension Trust Fund of Northern Nevada v. Allrich et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on February 2, 2016. Each of these five derivative actions names the Company as a nominal defendant, and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. Each complaint sets forth allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment against the defendant officers and directors. The plaintiffs in these derivative actions seek damages in unspecified amounts on the Company's behalf from the officer and director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, and an award of their costs and attorney's fees. On June 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ordered the four cases pending before it to be consolidated, appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and defendants' response to the complaint. Pursuant to the June 9, 2016 order, counsel have met and conferred regarding proposals for (a) the time for plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint or provide notice of plaintiffs' intent to rely upon the original Complaint in Case No. 3:15-cv- 02722-GPC-KSC (the "operative complaint"); (b) the time for defendants to respond to the operative complaint; and (c) a schedule for briefing any motion to dismiss that may be filed by a defendant. A stipulation setting forth the agreed litigation schedule has been submitted to the Court. The fifth derivative action, which is pending before the San Diego County Superior Court, has been stayed by agreement of the parties. On September 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the Class Action, with leave to amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul Grinberg, Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory Garrabrants. The Company and the other defendants dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and are vigorously defending these purported derivative actions. On November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which includes the previously dismissed defendants. On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss such Second Amended Class Action Complaint. BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The Company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. BofI Holding, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. BUFFALO TRACE: Bid to Transfer "Penrose" to W.D. Ky. Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants' motion to transfer venue of the case captioned STEPHEN PENROSE, JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH GUARDINO, and DANIEL POPE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC., OLD CHARTER DISTILLERY CO. and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17cv294 HEA (E.D. Mo.) to the Western District of Kentucky. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action based on alleged violations of various state consumer protection laws. They claim that the Defendants misrepresented that Old Charter bourbon has been aged eight years through implication because the number 8 remains on its bottles. Previously, the bottles stated that the bourbon had been aged eight years. The current bottles no longer state that the bourbon is "aged" 8 "years," rather, the bottles just contains the number 8 in the same location as the old bottles. The Court held that both the convenience and interest of justice factors require consideration of the Plaintiffs' choice of forum. The Court held that the Defendants' argument that all the Plaintiffs, except Stephen Penrose will not be inconvenienced by litigating in Kentucky over Missouri, since none of the other Plaintiffs are located in Missouri, fails to acknowledge that the out of the Missouri Plaintiffs chose to litigate this action in Missouri. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the parties have not identified any non-party witnesses that would be required to travel to Missouri or provide deposition testimony. Thus, the convenience of the witnesses weighs in favor the Plaintiffs at this point. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion, memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/pqjQhC from Leagle.com Stephen Penrose, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor and Fisher, P.A.. James Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor and Fisher, P.A.. Joseph Guardino, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor and Fisher, P.A.. Daniel Pope, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor and Fisher, P.A.. Buffalo Trace Distillery, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley, LLP, William R. Bay, Thompson Coburn, LLP & Brandi Lynne Burke, Thompson Coburn, LLP. Old Charter Distillery Co., Defendant, represented by Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley, LLP, William R. Bay, Thompson Coburn, LLP & Brandi Lynne Burke, Thompson Coburn, LLP. Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley, LLP, William R. Bay, Thompson Coburn, LLP & Brandi Lynne Burke, Thompson Coburn, LLP. CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Still Defends Class Suit in Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------------- Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is party to a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephones without first obtaining consent due to reassignment of the number or revocation of prior consent. At the present time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a liability related to this matter. CARMAX INC: 3 Calif. Sales Consultants Class Suits Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. entities continue to defend themselves in three putative class proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants in California, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2017. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys' fees. On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. The Company said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters." CarMax Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of used vehicles in the United States. The Company operates in two segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. The Company was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. CATHAY LOGISTICS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Arevalo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elmer Arevalo, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. Cathay Logistics LLC, Versa Logistics, LLC, and Does l through 50, Case No. BC662231 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unlawful deductions, and failure to reimburse drivers for business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants are in the business of providing various shipping services throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin M. Gomez, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (858) 552-0000 Facsimile: (760) 720-5217 E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com CENTENE CORP: Federal Securities Class Action Moved to Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The federal securities class action filed against Centene Corporation, among other defendants, has been transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 1, 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. Centene Corp. stated, "The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations." Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. It operates through two segments, Managed Care and Specialty Services. The Company provides its services through primary and specialty care physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. CHINA UNICOM: Braces for Potential Securities Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 that it is aware of certain U.S. law firms investigating possible class action claims against the Company in relation to the unlawful conduct involving its former chairman and chief executive officer, Mr. Chang Xiaobing. Mr. Chang has been accused of accepting bribes worth approximately RMB3.76 million between 1998 and 2014. On April 18, 2017, Mr. Chang pleaded guilty to these charges at trial and is awaiting sentencing. He served as the Company's chairman and chief executive officer between 2004 and 2015. On or around April 18, 2017, certain law firms in the United States that specialize in representing investors as plaintiffs in class action litigation have publicly stated that they are investigating potential federal securities laws claims against the Company and its representatives on behalf of the Company's investors relating to the misconduct of Mr. Chang. The Company said, "We were not aware of any actual claims or legal proceedings in this regard as of the date of this annual report. However, the aforementioned investigations and any other threatened or actual claims or legal proceedings against the Company or its representatives, regardless of whether or not they are meritorious, could materially and adversely affect our reputation, operations and the trading price of our ordinary shares and ADSs." China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited, an investment holding company, provides telecommunications services in the People's Republic of China. The Company offers cellular and fixed-line voice and related value-added, broadband and other Internet-related, information communications technology, and business and data communications services. The Company was founded in 2000 and is based in Central, Hong Kong. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Still Defends Stockholders' Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Clovis Oncology, Inc. continues to defend against a class action lawsuit, Clovis said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified damages. Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 13, 2015. On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the District of Colorado and the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non-opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application. On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the "Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants filed a statement in the Northern District of California supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to Transfer. On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016, the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to Transfer. On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the putative class. On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions (the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto, including the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject to further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "Clovis Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the "July 2015 Offering") and certain Company venture capital investors (the "Venture Capital Defendants"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants violated particular sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The purported misrepresentations and omissions concern allegedly misleading statements about rociletinib. The consolidated action is purportedly brought on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act claims) and investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to the Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages. On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco, and Moran actions were consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the District of Colorado. The Clovis Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture Capital Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 23, 2016, and the defendants filed their replies on October 14, 2016. On February 9, 2017, Judge Raymond P. Moore of the District of Colorado issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Clovis Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clovis Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted with prejudice with respect to named defendant Gillian Ivers-Read and granted with respect to certain statements determined by the Court to be nonactionable statements of opinion or optimism. The Clovis Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was otherwise denied. Next, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted without prejudice with respect to Plaintiffs' claim under Section 12(a) of the Securities Act and granted insofar as the Court determined that certain statements challenged under Section 11 of the Securities Act are nonactionable statements of opinion or optimism. The Opinion and Order provided that Plaintiffs shall have until February 23, 2017 to file an amended pleading directed solely as to their Section 12(a) claim against the Underwriter Defendants. The Underwriters Defendants' Motion to dismiss was otherwise denied. Finally, the court granted the Venture Capital Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. On April 11, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order providing for, inter alia, a schedule for completing document and fact discovery, as well as setting briefing schedules for motions for class certification and motions for summary judgment. On March 14, 2017, the Clovis Defendants and the Arkin Plaintiffs participated in a mediation, which did not result in a settlement. "We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful," the Company said. Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in the United States, Europe and additional international markets. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: 2nd Case Status Report Due September 21 -------------------------------------------------------- Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the lawsuit by the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts, the parties' second status report as to the progress of the Colorado Action is due on September 21, 2017. On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors, investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the Northern District of California issued a written decision and order granting the Motion to Remand the case to the Superior Court, County of San Mateo and denying the Motion to Transfer as moot. While the case was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the defendants' time to respond to the Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint. Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the July 2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital investors. The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis' offering documents for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended Complaint includes new allegations about the Company's rociletinib disclosures. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages. Pursuant to a briefing schedule ordered by the court on July 28, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the Electrical Workers action pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran, and Rocco actions in the District of Colorado ("Motion to Stay"), and a demurrer to the Amended Complaint, on August 15, 2016; plaintiffs filed their oppositions on August 31, 2016; and the defendants filed their reply briefs on September 15, 2016. On September 23, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the San Mateo Superior Court granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the related securities class action captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No. 1:15-cv- 2546 (the "Colorado Action"). Per the order to stay proceedings, the San Mateo Superior Court will defer issuing a ruling on defendants' pending demurrer, and the parties' first status report as to the progress of the Colorado Action was filed with the San Mateo Superior Court on March 23, 2017. The parties' second status report as to the progress of the Colorado Action is due on September 21, 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in the United States, Europe and additional international markets. COMPLETE WIRING: Faces "Morse" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Morse, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Complete Wiring Concepts, LLC and Tyrone Christian, Case No. 2:17-cv-00453-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an electrical contraction company in the Southern District of Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com COREPOWER YOGA: Osterholt's Classes Certified; Hearing on June 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Manish S. Shah granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification filed in the lawsuit styled ZURI OSTERHOLT and MICHELLE BENIKOV v. COREPOWER YOGA, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05089 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Zuri Osterholt and Michelle Benikov taught yoga classes for CorePower first as interns and later as instructors. The Plaintiffs brought claims against CorePower under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. In the Motion: -- Plaintiff Osterholt seeks to represent a class of interns defined as "all persons who have been employed by CorePower Yoga as interns throughout the United States, from three years prior and up through the date the order granting conditional certification is entered"; and -- Plaintiffs Osterholt and Benikov seek to represent an instructor class, consisting of "all persons who have been employed by CorePower Yoga as instructors throughout the United States, from [three] years prior and up through the date the order granting conditional certification is entered." In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Shah directs CorePower to disclose to the Plaintiffs identifying information on the class by June 8, 2017. The parties must file a status report with a proposed case schedule (to include proposed deadlines for the close of discovery, dispositive motions, and motions for class certification and decertification of the collective action) and any new objections to the notice by June 15, 2017. A status hearing is set for June 29, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LPGJmLOX CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Faces "Kloker" Suit in D. Mont. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Maureen Kloker, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00048-CCL (D. Mont., April 20, 2017). Credit Associates Inc. provides collection services in Montana since 1944, specializing in medical, retail, and professional collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory John Trangmoe, Esq. 162 Flanagin Lane Stevensville, MT 59870 Tel: (406) 880-2009 Email: Greg@eMoe.net CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Hearing This Month on Class Action Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing is scheduled in June 2017 on a unitholder's appeal of the order approving a class action settlement. On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G. Farber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, and Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner breached its fiduciary duties, certain individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and that other defendants aided and abetted such breaches. On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Robert G. Phillps, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Getting, Warren H. Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP, LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner and certain individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an alleged incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC. On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September 4, 2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for temporary restraining order and requested an expedited preliminary injunction hearing, which had been scheduled for September 23, 2015. On September 22, 2015, however, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed settlement of the Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to a number of conditions, including notice to the class, limited confirmatory discovery and final court approval of the settlement. In October 2016, the court approved the settlement. On November 7, 2016, a unitholder filed an appeal of the settlement and a hearing is scheduled in June 2017. If the appeal is denied, the settlement will become final. "We do not expect the settlement to have a material impact to our consolidated financial statements," the Company said. Crestwood Equity is a publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware limited partnership that develops, acquires, owns or controls, and operates primarily fee-based assets and operations within the energy midstream sector. Crestwood provides broad-ranging infrastructure solutions across the value chain to service premier liquids-rich natural gas and crude oil shale plays across the United States. We own and operate a diversified portfolio of crude oil and natural gas gathering, processing, storage and transportation assets and connect fundamental energy supply with energy demand across North America. Crestwood Equity is a holding company and all of its consolidated operating assets are owned by or through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Crestwood Midstream, a Delaware limited partnership. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Florida Prosthodontics Alleges TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Florida Prosthodontics, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00899-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2017), alleges that Defendant continues to send unsolicited fax ads in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dentsply Sirona, Inc. is a producer of dental equipment and consumables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Dill, Esq. THE DILL LAW GROUP PA 350 E. Pine Street Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407 367 0278 Fax: 407 206 3297 E-mail: ddill@dillawgroup.com E. I. DU PONT: Medical Monitoring Registration in W.Va. Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the registration process and eligibility screening for a medical monitoring program in connection to a class action settlement agreement is ongoing. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents (the Leach Settlement). In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the Leach Settlement Agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the Leach Settlement Agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. Under the Leach Settlement Agreement, the Company is obligated to fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the company established and put US$1 million into an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The balance in the escrow account must be at least US$0.5 million; as a result, transfers of additional funds may be required periodically. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account; at March 31, 2017 less than US$1 million has been disbursed. The Company said, "While it is probable that the company will incur liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program, such liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. In addition, under the Leach Settlement Agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users." E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and technology based company. The Company markets its products through the company's sales force and distributors in the United States and internationally. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. EDWARD PRODUCE: Faces "Arias" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward Produce Corp. The case is styled as Charles Arias, On Behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edward Produce Corp., E.D. Produce Corp., Edward Doe and Pedro Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02836 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2017). Edward Produce Corp. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business from Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ENERGY RECOVERY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the United States District Court of the Northern District of California set a final hearing date of August 24, 2017, to approve the settlement in the case, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation. On January 20 and 27, 2015, two stockholder class action complaints were filed against the Company in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, on behalf of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints have now been consolidated under the caption, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based upon alleged public misrepresentations and seeks the recovery of unspecified monetary damages. On October 12, 2016, the Company and the attorneys representing the class reached an agreement in principle to settle all outstanding claims in the case. As part of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to pay the class an undisclosed sum, the entirety of which will be borne by the Company's insurer. On April 11, 2017, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set a final hearing date of August 24, 2017. Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to industrial fluid flow markets worldwide. ENERGY TRANSFER: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Not Yet Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that defendants' dates to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the merger related lawsuits have not yet been set. Between January 6, 2017 and February 8, 2017, seven purported ETP common unitholders ("Plaintiffs") separately filed seven putative unitholder class action lawsuits challenging the merger and the disclosures made in connection with the merger. Since then, two of the Plaintiffs have non-suited their claims. The lawsuits remaining are styled (a) Shure v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00044-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Shure Lawsuit"); (b) Verlin v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17- cv-00045-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Verlin Lawsuit"); (c) Duany v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00058-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Duany Lawsuit"); (d) Epstein v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et. al., Case No, 1:17-cv-00069, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Epstein Lawsuit") and (e) Sgnilek v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00141, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Sgnilek Lawsuit" and collectively with the Shure Lawsuit, Verlin Lawsuit, Duany Lawsuit, and Epstein Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). The Duany Lawsuit and Epstein Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP GP, ETP GP, LLC, ETE, and the members of the ETP Board. The Shure Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP GP, the members of the ETP Board, ETE, Sunoco Logistics, and Sunoco Logistics GP. The Sgnilek Lawsuit is filed against ETP, ETP GP, ETP GP, LLC, and ETE, the members of the ETP Board, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging the merger and the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the merger. According to Plaintiffs, the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus is allegedly misleading because, among other things, it fails to disclose certain information concerning, in general, (a) the background and process that led to the merger; (b) ETE's, ETP's, and Sunoco Logistics' financial projections; (c) the financial analysis and fairness opinion provided by Barclays; and (d) alleged conflicts of interest concerning Barclays, ETE, and certain officers and directors of ETP and ETE. Based on these allegations, and in general, Plaintiffs allege that (i) Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the ETP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs in the Shure Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit also allege that Sunoco Logistics has violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also assert, in general, that the terms of the merger (including, among other terms, the merger consideration) are unfair to ETP common unitholders and resulted from an unfair and conflicted process. Based on these allegations, the Sgnilek Lawsuit alleges that (a) the ETP Board, ETP GP, ETP GP LLC, ETP, and ETE have breached the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties, and (b) Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP have aided and abetted those alleged breaches. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until Defendants disclose the allegedly omitted information. The Sgnilek Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until the ETP Board adopts and implements processes to obtain the best possible terms for ETP common unitholders. To the extent that the merger is consummated before injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees. Defendants' dates to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Lawsuits have not yet been set. Defendants cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this quarterly report, nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve such litigation. Defendants believe the Lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the Lawsuits and any other actions challenging the merger. ENHANCED DRILLING: Faces "Guillotte" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB GUILLOTTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ENHANCED DRILLING, INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01533 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2017), alleges that as a service technician, Plaintiff was paid a salary and a day rate but no overtime compensation when he worked more than 40 hours a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. ENHANCED DRILLING, INC. is an oilfield services company with locations throughout the world. EDI provides managed pressure drilling services. Plaintiff Jacob Guillotte worked offshore for Defendant Enhanced Drilling, Inc. as a service technician performing work on managed pressure drilling equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77005 Phone: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com jbresler@mybackwages.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to E.D. Va. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Scott C. Anderson, And all Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-03959 was removed on April 19, 2017 from the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Richmond). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00303-MHL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright. Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J Nickitas, Esq. 431 S 7th Street, Suite 2446 Minneapolis, MN 55415 The Defendant is represented by: Edwin H Caldie , III, Esq. Stinson Leonard Street LLP 150 S 5th St Ste 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 335-1404 Fax: (612) 335-1657 - and - Misty L. Peterson, Esq. King & Spaulding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 572-4939 - and - Zachary A McEntyre, Esq. King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 572-4500 ERJ DINING: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Cassandra Grubb, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. ERJ Dining, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00316-DJH (W.D. Ken., May 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages for every hour worked, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. ERJ Dining, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Richmond, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Horne, Esq. HORNE LAW OFFICE 517 West Ormsby Avenue Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 637-1222 - and - Jerry Martin, Esq. David Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Against "Dougherty" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015 and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Company filed an opposition to that motion on March 1, 2017. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. The Company is the lipid management company, a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing convenient, complementary, cost-effective, once-daily, oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol ("LDL-C"). EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Unit Still Defends Jerry Beeman Case in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company's unit, Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI), continues to face a legal proceeding filed by Jerry Beeman, among other plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The plaintiffs in the case styled Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. allege that ESI and the other defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations to provide California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices. On November 14, 2016, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that the proposed class representatives and counsel were inadequate to represent a class. Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2 Antitrust Class Suits vs. Unit Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company's unit continues to defend itself in 2 potential class action proceedings over alleged Sherman Antitrust Act violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The cases are captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court has entered an order denying class certification in the Brady case and decertifying the class against Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI) and Medco in the North Jackson case. The Brady plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the court's denial of class certification. Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Defends Firefighters' Pension Fund Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company continues to defend itself in a putative securities class action with the Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund as plaintiff, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. In the case Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Express Scripts Holding Company, et al., the plaintiff filed this putative securities class action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock between February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 and alleges the Company and named individuals violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by carrying out a scheme to defraud the investing public. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and other class members, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief. In support of the claim, the plaintiff adopts many of the allegations made by Anthem, Inc. in a separate proceeding. Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Consolidated Class Suit on ERISA Breach Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company's unit, Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI), continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action case regarding alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), among other claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The case captioned In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation consolidated the cases: John Doe One and John Doe Two v. Express Scripts, Inc; and Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem, Inc. They allege that the Company and Anthem breached fiduciary duties and otherwise violated their legal obligations under ERISA, that ESI engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other racketeering activity through its invoicing system with Anthem, that ESI breached its contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief under theories including unjust enrichment, that ESI violated unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, that Anthem breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in health plans, and that ESI violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In support of the claim, the plaintiff adopts many of the allegations made by Anthem, Inc. in a separate proceeding. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief, equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Analog Insulin Products Class Action Continues --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action case filed against Express Scripts Holding Company's unit, among other defendants, related to analog insulin products is still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The case is captioned Frank Barnett, et al. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., CVS Health Corp., and UnitedHealth Group, Inc., OptumRx, Inc. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the defendants entered into "exclusionary" agreements that granted exclusive formulary placement for certain analog insulin products in return for higher rebate payments. The complaint alleges that these agreements had the effect of driving up analog insulin costs for the putative class members and violated Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the competition and consumer protection laws of various states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and Europe. It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business Operations. It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April 2012. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Class Suit to Begin Oct. 23 -------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled to begin on October 23, 2017, in the class action lawsuit related to the Company's initial public offering. The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified damages." "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend them. "The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. "In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our directors and certain of our officers. "On July 24, 2015, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the derivative actions. "On December 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated securities action. On April 14, 2017, we filed a motion for summary judgment. Trial is scheduled to begin on October 23, 2017." FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Stock Reclassification Case to Begin Sept. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled to begin September 26, 2017, in the case, In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-VCL. The Company said, "On April 27, 2016, we announced a proposal to create a new class of non-voting capital stock (Class C capital stock) and our intention to declare and pay a dividend of two shares of Class C capital stock for each outstanding share of Class A and Class B common stock (the Reclassification). Following our announcement of the Reclassification, beginning on April 29, 2016, multiple purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of our stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery against us, certain of our board of directors, and Mark Zuckerberg." "The lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286- VCL, and the consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Reclassification. Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to enjoin the Reclassification as well as unspecified money damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. "Trial is scheduled to begin on September 26, 2017. We believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted." FARMLAND MUTUAL: California Court Trims ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case SCARLETTE MEJIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE CO, an unincorporated association; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00570-TLN-KLN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) dismissed the Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Causes of Action are dismissed, without prejudice, and with each side to bear their own fees and costs as to those claims; (ii) granted the Plaintiff's request for leave to file her First Amended Complaint; (iii) ordered that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served on the Defendants, on the date of the Order; and (iv) ordered that the Defendants will have 30 days from the date of entry of the Order by the Court to file a responsive pleading. The Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a wage and hour putative class action Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento on Feb. 3, 2017, against Defendants. The Plaintiff has submitted a notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") alleging claims under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on Feb. 3, 2017 for failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Defendants filed a notice of removal and removed this action to the Court on March 16, 2017. The Plaintiff contends the LWDA has not responded regarding their intent to investigate the noticed claims and, therefore, the Plaintiff contends that she is statutorily authorized to act as a Private Attorneys General on the noticed claims as of April 9, 2017. The Parties have engaged in informal discovery regarding the applicability of ERISA to the Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Causes of Action and the Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss those claims, without prejudice, and with each side to bear their own fees and costs as to those claims. Neither the Plaintiff nor her counsel is receiving any type or form of compensation for the dismissal of the claims without prejudice. The Defendants have agreed to permit Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint. They deny the allegations in the proposed First Amended Complaint and are not making any admission of any kind whatsoever in agreeing to this stipulation. A full-text copy of the May 30, 2017 stipulation and order is available at https://is.gd/fOqU54 from Leagle.com Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda, Shimoda Law Corp.. Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Paul Rodriguez, Shimoda Law Corp. Farmland Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn, Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn, Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres, Littler Mendelson, P.C.. FCA US: Can Recover Costs Over Protective Order Violation --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY BROWN, and MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC and HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:15- cv-855-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part the Defendant's Motion for Emergency Relief and denied its Supplemental Motion for Sanctions for Additional Violations. This is a proposed class action in which Plaintiffs assert that various models of Defendant FCA US LLC's cars and trucks suffer from design defects that allow hackers to gain access to Defendant Harman International Industries, Inc.'s "uConnect infotainment system." Such vulnerability, the Plaintiffs allege, allows hackers to gain access to, and take control of, vehicles' powertrain and safety related functions. On motion of the parties, the Court entered an Amended Protective Order on Jan. 9, 2017. Said protective order provides that "no documents, information, or things designated as 'Confidential' or 'Attorneys' Eyes Only' shall be filed with the Court, including that contained in pleadings, motions, briefs, declarations, or exhibits, except under seal." The Order also directs that "provided that no 'Confidential' information is disclosed, the parties may generally refer to documents designated as 'Confidential' in pleadings, motions, briefs, affidavits, or exhibits filed with the Court, without the need to file such pleadings, motions, briefs, affidavits, or exhibits under seal." In FCA US' motion for emergency relief now before the Court, it asserts the Plaintiffs violated provisions of the Amended Protective Order and revealed information culled from documents designated as "Confidential" in their public filing of a miscellaneous action to enforce a third-party subpoena filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 24, 2017. FCA US asks the Court for various relief due to the Plaintiffs' alleged violation, including: (i) order the Plaintiffs and their Counsel to withdraw their motion to compel non-party Cisco System, Inc.'s compliance with subpoena duces tecum and memorandum in support in the miscellaneous action; (ii) order the Plaintiffs to close the miscellaneous action and take any and all other actions necessary to remove FCA US' confidential information from the record; (iii) close document discovery; (iv) order the payment of attorney's fees and costs incurred by FCA US in connection with the Plaintiffs' filing of confidential information in the public record in the miscellaneous action; and (v) grant FCA US all other appropriate relief. In response to FCA US' motion, the Plaintiffs assert that the information deemed "Confidential" by FCA US in its motion is not in fact confidential as it merely references background information that is publicly available. The Plaintiffs also remark that they did not attach any confidential documents to their motion or memorandum in the miscellaneous action, but only referred to generic information from FCA US documents that was not confidential. In support of their argument, the Plaintiffs attached (and cited portions of) the deposition testimony of Laith Shina, a Chrysler witness. The Plaintiffs also indicated that despite their belief that they in no way violated the Amended Protective Order, by the evening of April 27, 2017, the motion and memorandum in the miscellaneous action were filed under seal. Soon after the Plaintiffs' filed their response to FCA US' motion, FCA US filed a combined supplement to its motion and a motion for sanctions for additional violations. In its supplemental motion, FCA US asserts that the Plaintiffs' filing of excerpts from Shina's deposition was yet another violation of the Protective Order as the time for FCA US to designate the deposition testimony as "Confidential" had not yet passed. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to respond to FCA US' supplemental motion and said reply was filed on May 4, 2017. In their reply, the Plaintiffs assert that the Protective Order provides a process for notifying the parties that a deposition contains confidential material in order to invoke the 20-day timeframe and FCA US failed to comply with this process. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert they had no indication that FCA US was going to designate any portion of Shina's deposition testimony as confidential prior to their filing. The Court held a motion hearing in this matter on May 5, 2017. At the hearing, the Court conducted a thorough review of the information contained in the Plaintiffs' miscellaneous filing in the Northern District of California and heard argument from both the Plaintiffs and FCA US regarding the documents. Generally, the Plaintiffs maintained that the information contained in its filings were in the public domain and urged the Court to conduct its own internet search for said information. FCA US pointed to confidential documents that contained the cited information and urged the Court to award costs associated with its enforcement of the Protective Order and asked the Court to cease discovery with respect to the production of additional documents. The Court is not convinced that the Plaintiffs' reference to and attachment of portions of Laith Shina's deposition testimony was violative of the terms of the Protective Order. Finding that the Plaintiffs violated the Protective Order by disclosing confidential information contained in documents designated as such in its filing of a motion to compel in a miscellaneous action, the Court must determine whether sanctions are appropriate. Noting that any confidential material has been sealed and is no longer in the public record, the Court finds that closing document discovery and ordering counsel to withdraw their motion to compel in their miscellaneous action too harsh a sanction. An appropriate sanction is to allow FCA US to recover its costs and attorneys' fees related to addressing and remedying the Plaintiffs' actions that were violative of the Protective Order. This includes the reasonable expenses FCA US incurred investigating the Plaintiffs' violation of the Protective Order and filing its motion for emergency relief; however, expenses related to the filing of the supplementary motion should not be included. Counsel for FCA US is directed to file a bill of costs, with support thereof, within seven days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 30, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/m950Sz from Leagle.com. ALI JUDAH, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC. ALI JUDAH, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC. TOTAL CARD, INC., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A. MONTOYA, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP. FIREEYE INC: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company awaits approval of the settlement of a stockholder class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers, and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering." "On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The actions were consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. "On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court overruled defendants' demurrers. On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class, which the court granted in part and denied in part on July 11, 2016. "On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on April 1, 2016. "On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. "On September 8, 2016, the court of appeal denied the petition. On September 16, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California. "On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review. "On December 8, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. "On February 6, 2017, the parties submitted to the Superior Court a stipulation of settlement. The terms of the settlement include a release and dismissal of all claims against all defendants without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. "On February 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Superior Court granted. The settlement, which is immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements, is subject to stockholder notice, court approval, and other customary conditions." FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero- day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics. FOMENTO ECONOMICO: Sao Paolo Solid Waste Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Fomento Economico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V.'s units are facing class action proceedings filed by the public prosecutor's office of the state of Sao Paulo regarding solid waste policy, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In August 2010, Law No. 12.305/2010 established the Brazilian National Solid Waste Policy. This policy is based on the principle of shared responsibility between the government, companies and the public, and provides for the post-consumption return of products to companies and requires public authorities to implement waste management programs. This law is regulated by Federal Decree No. 7.404/2010, and was published in December 2010. In response to the Brazilian National Solid Waste Policy, in December 2012, a proposal of agreement was provided to the Ministry of the Environment by almost 30 associations involved in the packaging sector, including the Brazilian Soft Drink and Non- Alcoholic Beverage Association (ABIR) in its capacity as representative for The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola FEMSA's Brazilian subsidiary and other bottlers. This agreement proposed the creation of a "coalition" to implement systems for reverse logistics packaging non-dangerous waste that make up the dry fraction of municipal solid waste or equivalent. The goal of the proposal is to create methodologies for sustainable development, and improve the management of solid waste by increasing recycling rates and decreasing incorrect disposal in order to protect the environment, society and the economy. The Ministry of Environment approved and signed this agreement in November 2015. In August 2016, the public prosecutor's office of the state of Sao Paulo filed a class action against the parties that signed this agreement, challenging the validity of certain terms of the agreement and the effectiveness of the mandatory measures to be taken by the companies of the packaging sector, as provided in the agreement. ABIR is leading the lawsuit's defense. Fomento Economico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V., through its subsidiaries, operates as a bottler of Coca-Cola trademark beverages and a chain of small-format stores. The Company was founded in 1890 and is headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico. FUN BUFFET: "Han" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gen Wang Han ("Han"), on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fun Buffet Inc., d/b/a "Fun Buffet", Yan Xia Zou, Yu Lin, "John" Chen (first name unknown), "John" Shi (first name unknown), and "Jane" Chen (first name unknown), a/k/a Sister Chen, Case No. 5:17-cv-01092 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 9421 State Route 14, Streetsboro, OH 44241. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Bristol, Esq. Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP The Hoyt Block Building Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com jfuchs@crklaw.com - and - Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com GATESTONE & CO: Class Certification Sought in "Ballaj" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled VALBONA BALLAJ, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. GATESTONE & CO. INTERNATIONAL INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv- 01311-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.), notifies the Court that on June 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., she will ask for an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action. A copy of the Notice and Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GIJvbyx6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com - and - Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com GLOBUS MEDICAL: Appeal in Silverstein Litigation Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an appeal in the Silverstein litigation remains pending. The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purported to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purported to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and sought damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. This matter was dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2016." "On September 9, 2016, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied, and on September 13, 2016 plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Globus Medical, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a medical device company focused on the design, development and commercialization of musculoskeletal implants. GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martin" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Barbara J. Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:17-cv- 14182-KAM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. GC Services Limited Partnership is a Delaware Limited Partnership engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 6330 Gulfton, Houson, Texas 77081. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com HELIX ENERGY: Securities Case Plaintiff Didn't Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that the plaintiff in a class action case on alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act has not filed an amended complaint by the March 17, 2017 deadline. On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder, Parviz Izadjoo, filed the class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo v. Owen Kratz and Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the Company and Mr. Kratz, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both the Company and Mr. Kratz, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz, based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry docks of two of the Company's vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that allegedly caused the price at which putative class members bought stock during the proposed class period to be artificially inflated. On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding Mr. Tripodo (the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) and Mr. Chamblee (the Company's former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer) as individual defendants, alleging the same types of claims made in the original complaint (alleged violations during the Class Period of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants), but asserting that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures are related to the condition of and repairs to certain equipment aboard the Q4000 vessel. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 28, 2016, and on February 14, 2017, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The dismissal was without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint by no later than March 17, 2017. The plaintiff did not amend the complaint by that deadline. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides specialty services to the offshore energy industry primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, the Asia Pacific, and West Africa regions. It operates through three segments: Well Intervention, Robotics, and Production Facilities. The Company was formerly known as Cal Dive International, Inc. and changed its name to Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. in March 2006. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. was incorporated in 1979 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. HONDA NORTH: Faces "Merkin" Suit Over Defective Starter System -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Merkin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Honda North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Case No. 3:17-cv-03625-PGS- DEA (D.N.J., May 24, 2017), is brought on behalf of a class of current and former Honda vehicle owners and lessees with defective engine starting systems in model years ("MY") 2013-15 Honda Accord and 2013 Honda Crosstour vehicles. The action arises from the Defendants' failure, despite their longstanding knowledge of this material and manufacturing defect, to disclose to the Plaintiff and other consumers that the Class Vehicles are predisposed to a starter system defect. The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and servicing corporations doing business within the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com mds@mccunewright.com jbk@mccuneright.com HONEST & QUALITY: "Park" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Young Kwan Park, and Young Rok Lee, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Honest & Quality, Corp. and Kinam Han, Case No. 707051/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at 70-62 Kissena Boulevard, #3F, Flushing, NY 11367. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip H. Kim, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com HOUSTON, TX: Kohr Seeks to Certify Homeless Class ------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TAMMY KOHR and EUGENE STROMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and ROBERT COLTON v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Case No. 4:17-cv- 01473 (S.D. Tex.), seek certification of this class: All people in Houston who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, to whom the City has directed a written threat to enforce Houston Code of Ordinances Sections 21-61 to -62. Tammy Kohr, Eugene Stroman and Robert Colton are homeless Houstonians challenging the constitutionality of Houston's new ordinances criminalizing homelessness. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of their counsel to represent the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6sSzQTVc The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trisha Trigilio, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS 1500 McGowen Street, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77004 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: ttrigilio@aclutx.org - and - Kali Cohn, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS 6440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 346-6577 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: kcohn@aclutx.org IBM CORP: Retirement Plans Committee Still Defends ERISA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corporation's Retirement Plans Committee continues to face a putative class action in New York over alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2017. In May 2015, the putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the Company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging violations of the ERISA. The Company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or former IBM executives were named as defendants. On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. On October 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping the company as a defendant. The matter remains pending in the United States District Court. International Business Machines Corporation provides information technology (IT) products and services worldwide. The Company was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in 1924. The Company was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Armonk, New York. ICU MEDICAL: Hospira Units Face Class Suit on IV Saline Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------- An attachment to ICU Medical, Inc.'s Form 8-K/A filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2017, disclosed that Hospira, Inc. and Hospira Worldwide, Inc. are defendants in a purported class action in Illinois regarding intravenous saline solution. On February 3, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of Hospira Infusion Systems, Pfizer, Inc.'s global infusion therapy business, for US$275 million in cash, 3.2 million shares of ICU stock and a potential US$225 million Earnout. Previously, in November 2016, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants' conduct restricts output and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks treble damages (for itself and on behalf of the putative class) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices used in infusion therapy, critical care, and oncology applications worldwide. It offers infusion therapy products comprising a tube running from a bottle or plastic bag containing a solution to a catheter inserted in a patient's vein for use in hospitals and ambulatory clinics. The Company sells its products to medical product manufacturers, distributors, and end-users. ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California. INDIANA, USA: Hines Moves to Certify Class of Disabled Prisoners ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hines, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JAMES HINES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBERT CARTER JR., in his official capacity, Case No. 3:17-cv-00388-PPS-MGG (Ind. Super. Ct., Laporte Cty.), asks the Court to certify this class: All prisoners currently incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility who are indigent, who are represented by a private attorney, who suffer from a mental and/or physical disability, and who seek accommodation for their disability through the receipt of at least one telephone call from their private attorney. Robert Carter, Jr., is the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction. Mr. Hines contends that as the proposed class representative, he has satisfied necessary prerequisites as the Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class through the Defendant's alleged discriminatory denial access to attorney-client telephone communication in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff James Hines is represented by: David W. Frank, Esq. Christopher C. Myers, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424-0600 Facsimile: (260) 424-0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xdZHYBUJ INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Expired ------------------------------------------------------- InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the time period for class action plaintiff to appeal the United States Supreme Court has expired. On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds as defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro- Spinal Scaffold(TM) implant. The plaintiff sought class certification for purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice. On May 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision. Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on April 6, 2016. On January 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an order and opinion affirming the dismissal of the Securities Class Action with prejudice. The time period for plaintiff to appeal the United States Supreme Court expired on April 10, 2017. The Company is a research and clinical-stage biomaterials and biotechnology company with a focus on the treatment of spinal cord injuries. Its proprietary technologies incorporate intellectual property licensed under the Company's exclusive, worldwide license from Boston Children's Hospital and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as intellectual property that has been developed internally in collaboration with its advisors and partners. J SALERNO & SON: Gonzalez's Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify the collective action titled SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. J. SALERNO & SON, INC., d/b/a SALERNO'S; JOSEPH SALERNO; MARIA SALERNO; PETER LIA; and VICTORIA LIA, Case No. 1:16-cv-05120 (N.D. Ill.), and for authorization to issue notice to the putative class members. Mr. Gonzalez worked as a cook from 1993 until January 30, 2016, at a restaurant allegedly owned and operated by the Defendants. He brought the lawsuit over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. In his Motion, Mr. Gonzalez asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective action composed of "all employees, past or present, who's (sic) payroll records show that they worked thirty-seven (37) hours in any one (1) week during the three (3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit" and "anyone who was a cook during the three (3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit." Mr. Gonzalez has also asked that notice be issued by sending the three forms he attached to the Motion. The Court, however, has identified various errors and orders the Plaintiff to address certain issues. Judge Gilbert directs the Plaintiff to file proposed notice, consent, and contact information forms that address the issues identified by the Court on or before June 2, 2017. If the Defendants have any issues with the Plaintiff's revised forms, Judge Gilbert orders that they can file an objection by June 12, 2017. The Plaintiff is not authorized to issue notice to putative members of the collective action until all the issues discussed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order have been addressed. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RWvFeDyC JIAO CONSULTING: "Arrazola" Suit Alleges Non-Payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS A. ARRAZOLA, JOSUE TEJADA, FRANCISCO DAVILA, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. JIAO CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a NOW & ZEN, JEAN-ALEXANDRE P MAUFROY, And BENOIT R NANQUETTE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 21848-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime according to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allegedly, there were some weeks in which Plaintiffs worked overtime hours that were not paid at any rate. Also, Plaintiffs had been working four weeks without receiving their regular wages. Defendant JIAU CONSULTING operates Now & Zen, an upscale Asian restaurant. Plaintiffs MARCOS A. ARRAZOLA, and JOSUE TEJADA, were hired as bussers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma., Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JIVE SOFTWARE: "Chun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Wave Merger ------------------------------------------------------ JIN CHUN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JIVE SOFTWARE, INC., TONY ZINGALE, ELISA STEELE, MARGARET BREYA, STEVE DARCY, ROBERT FRANKFURT, PHIL KOEN, TOM REILLY, CHUCK ROBEL, GABRIELLE TOLEDANO, BALAJI YELAMANCHILI, WAVE SYSTEMS CORP., and JAZZ MERGERSUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02855 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin a Tender Offer currently scheduled to expire on June 9, 2017, in which Wave Systems Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ESW Capital, LLC (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, (ESW)), and Wave's wholly owned subsidiary, Jazz Mergersub, Inc. will acquire each outstanding share of Jive common stock for $5.25 per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately $462 million. Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Acquisition which undervalues Jive and is the result of a flawed sales process. Post-closure, Jive stockholders will be frozen out of seeing the return on their investment of any and all future profitability of Jive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 534-2590 Fax: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com KCG HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Proposed Sale to Virtu Financial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KCG Holdings, Inc., Charles Haldeman, Debra Chrapaty, Daniel Coleman, Peter R. Fisher, Rene M. Kern, James T. Milde, John C. Morris, Alastair Rampell, Daniel F. Schmitt, Laurie M. Shahon, Colin Smith, Heather E. Tookes, Adrian Weller, Virtu Financial, Inc., and Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 1:17- cv-03946 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons and entities that own KCG common stock, to enjoin the proposed transaction announced on April 20, 2017, pursuant to which KCG Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by Virtu Financial, Inc. and Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc. for $20.00 per share in cash. According to the complaint, KCG Holdings filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that KCG stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the estimates of unlevered free cash flow for the Company for the last nine months of 2017 and for the years 2018 through 2021, and the corresponding definition and constituent line items; (ii) the range of illustrative terminal values for the Company; (iii) the terminal year estimate of the free cash flow to be generated by the Company; (iv) the amount of the Company's estimated net debt as of March 31, 2017 as provided by Company management; (v) the number of fully diluted outstanding shares of the Company as provided by Company management; (vi) Goldman's basis for applying perpetuity growth rates ranging from (2.0)% to 2.0%; and (vii) the inputs underlying the discount rates ranging from 9.0% to 11.0%. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. It adds that the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest KCG's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. KCG Holdings, Inc. offers services designed to address trading needs across asset classes, product types, and time zones. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Objects to Punitive Damages in Halyard Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly-Clark Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that it intends to challenge a jury's verdict in a class action case involving its former healthcare business, Halyard Health, Inc. The Company is a party to certain legal proceedings relating to Halyard, which the Company spun-off on October 31, 2014. This includes Bahamas Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., a California consumer class action relating to the sale of surgical gowns. On April 7, 2017, the jury awarded the plaintiff class US$3.9 million in compensatory damages and US$350 million in punitive damages against Kimberly-Clark. The Company said, "We intend to challenge the jury's verdict as we believe it is contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that the punitive damage award is baseless, excessive and not consistent with California and federal laws. "Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Halyard in connection with the spin-off, Halyard is obligated to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities primarily related to our former healthcare business. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products worldwide. Kimberly-Clark Corporation was founded in 1872 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. KINDER MORGAN: Court Denies Calif. Landowners' Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2017, that the federal district court in Arizona denied the request for class certification filed by a group of private landowners in California in connection with Union Pacific Railroad Company easement matters. Company subsidiary SFPP, L.P. and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) are engaged in a proceeding to determine the extent, if any, to which the rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted pursuant to existing contractual arrangements for the ten-year period beginning January 1, 2004 (Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D", Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, filed July 28, 2004). In September 2011, the trial judge determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1, 2004 was US$14 million, subject to annual consumer price index increases. SFPP appealed the judgment. By notice dated October 25, 2013, UPRR demanded the payment of US$22.3 million in rent for the first year of the next ten-year period beginning January 1, 2014, which SFPP rejected. On November 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion which reversed the judgment, including the award of prejudgment interest, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of UPRR's property interest in its right-of-way, including whether UPRR has sufficient interest to grant SFPP's easements. UPRR filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court which was denied. The trial court is expected to retry the 2004 rental dispute in April, 2018. Until the 2004 rental dispute is resolved, the parties have stayed the proceeding to establish rent for the rental term beginning in 2014. After the decision by the California Court of Appeals which held that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain easements and may not be able to collect rent from those easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP. Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed and are pending in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment, accounting, and alleged unlawful business acts and practices arising from defendants' alleged improper use or occupation of subsurface real property. On April 19, 2017, the federal district court in Arizona denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. SFPP views these cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiffs. UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface pipeline easements along UPRR's railroad right-of-way. SFPP relied on the validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the value of those easements. The Company said, "We believe we have recorded a right-of-way liability sufficient to cover our potential obligation, if any, for back rent." Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. KINDER MORGAN: Wisconsin Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. is awaiting the court's action on an appeal to a dismissed request for class certification in a price reporting litigation pending in Wisconsin, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several of the cases have been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases, which are pending in Nevada federal district court, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015, and the cases were then remanded to the Nevada federal district court for further consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous remaining issues. On May 24, 2016, the district court granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer in Kansas in which approximately US$500 million in damages has been alleged. That ruling has been appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Tentative settlements have been reached in class actions originally filed in Kansas and Missouri, which settlements are subject to court approval. In the remaining case, a Wisconsin class action in which approximately US$300 million in damages has been alleged against all defendants, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff has petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an interlocutory review of this ruling. The Company said, " There remains significant uncertainty regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure, if any, and costs are not currently determinable." Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. LINEBARGER GOGGAN: "Hoy" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Edmund Hoy an individual person, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John Clinnin, an individual person, Timothy O'Reilly, an individual person, Richard Haas, an individual person, Nicole Holmes, an individual person, Scott McGlasson, an individual person, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, a foreign limited liability law partnership, Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-0007840- CU-BT-NC, was removed on April 19, 2017, from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00788-BTM-KSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz and Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. Linebarger Goggan is a government debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William McGrane, Esq. McGrane PC Four Embarcadero Center 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 292-4807 The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Heald Turner Lewis BrisboisBisgaard& Smith LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 250-1800 Fax: (213) 250-7900 Email: stephen.turner@lewisbrisbois.com LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to be Completed by November 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that fact discovery is to be completed by November 30, 2017, in the case, Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D. D. C. 2014). On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its stock price, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting officer as a defendant. On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Only the claims related to the Company's retail division were not dismissed. On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint. The scheduling order in this action requires that: plaintiffs' class certification motion be fully briefed by May 16, 2017; fact discovery be completed by November 30, 2017; and expert discovery be completed by May 23, 2018. The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. Liquidity Services (the "Company") operates a network of leading e-commerce marketplaces that enable buyers and sellers to transact in an efficient, automated environment offering over 500 product categories. MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Says "Lennen" Suit in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------ Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action lawsuit by Anthony and Beth Lennen are in the early stages. The Company said, "On May 20, 2016, we, certain of our subsidiaries, and other third parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of MVCD points, from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program. Plaintiffs challenge the characterization of the beneficial interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real estate interests under Florida law. They also challenge the structure of the trust and associated operational aspects of the trust product. The relief sought includes, among other things, declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive damages." "On September 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain questions to Florida state regulators, which motions remain pending. "We dispute the material allegations in the complaint and intend to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at this time." MDL 1720: Interchange Multidistrict Lawsuit vs. Visa Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Visa Inc. remains a defendant in an Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) involving putative class actions regarding a settlement agreement signed in 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On November 23, 2016, class plaintiffs that signed the 2012 Settlement Agreement filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision that vacated the district court's certification of the merchant class and reversed the approval of the settlement. The Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the district court entered an order appointing interim counsel for two putative classes of plaintiffs, a "Damages Class" and an "Injunctive Relief Class." Following the district court's order, on February 8, 2017, plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages Class sought leave to file an amended complaint and plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class filed a new class complaint. The plaintiffs that signed the 2012 Settlement Agreement, acting on behalf of the putative Damages Class, filed a motion requesting leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The complaint seeks money damages alleged to range in the tens of billions of dollars (subject to trebling), as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief, and names as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain U.S. financial institutions. The plaintiffs assert that the proposed complaint updates, among other things, claims for damages and accounts for industry developments. Defendants opposed the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion on March 10, 2017. A new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. That complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against: the setting of default interchange rates; certain Visa Rules relating to merchants, including the honor- all-cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed acquirer network fee. The complaint names as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain U.S. financial institutions. On February 8, 2017, the same day that the putative Damages Class plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint and the putative Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs filed a new class action complaint, certain other individual merchants filed motions in existing actions in MDL 1720 requesting leave to amend their complaints. Merchants requesting leave to amend assert, among other things, that their proposed complaints add claims for injunctive relief and update claims for damages. Defendants opposed the various merchants' motions on March 10, 2017. In addition, on February 8, 2017, certain individual merchants filed a new action in federal court which was subsequently included in MDL 1720. A number of individual merchant actions previously filed have been settled and remain settled, but the settlement agreement with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. automatically terminated upon the exhaustion of appeals concerning the reversal of approval of the 2012 Settlement Agreement. The termination results in a decrease of the "settled" percentage of Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the 2012 Settlement Agreement. Consequently, as of April 21, 2017, Visa has reached settlement agreements with individual merchants representing approximately 34% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the 2012 Settlement Agreement. Unlike the matters above, all of which were filed in federal court or are pending in MDL 1720, one merchant filed a case on February 17, 2017, in Texas state court. The Texas merchant generally pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. Based on currently available information, the Company believes this matter may be covered by the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. It has a strategic partnership agreement with Oman Arab Bank to convert the bank's current electron cards to chip- and-PIN debit cards. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Bid to Dismiss "Kerpen" Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James C. Cacheris of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the case captioned PHIL KERPEN, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16cv1307 (JCC/TCB)(E.D. Va.), for Failure to State a Claim. Judge Cacheris also denied the Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and for Leave to File Supplemental Authority and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs -- individuals who "have used, and continue to use" the facilities at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport, and who pay tolls on the Dulles toll road -- filed the putative class action on July 5, 2016. The putative class includes "all persons or entities in the United States who used the facilities located on or within the premises" at National and Dulles "leased to MWAA and from whom MWAA has exacted a fee, charge, toll or other similar payment from November 2008 to present." The Plaintiffs challenge MWAA's authority on a variety of constitutional and statutory grounds. Broadly speaking, they contend that (i) MWAA results from an unlawful interstate compact between Virginia and the District of Columbia (Counts I-II); (ii) the federal government has improperly delegated federal power to MWAA (Counts III-V); (iii) the tolls charged by MWAA are illegal exactions (Count VI); (iv) MWAA has contravened the lease, and the related federal law, under which it maintains properties owned by the federal government (Counts VII-VIII); (v) MWAA and the federal government have both violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (Counts IX-X); and (vi) MWAA has violated 42 U.S.C. Section (Count XI). The Court finds that MWAA is not a federal instrumentality exercising federal power. As Counts III, IV, and V of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint rest on "the premise that MWAA exercises federal power," those Counts fail as a matter of law, Judge Cacheris held. Count VI of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that tolls charged by MWAA are illegal exactions that violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The legal basis for this claim is unclear, the judge pointed out. Indeed, the parties are unable to agree as to the body of law under which the claim arises, the judge held. The Court notes that the Plaintiffs' counsel brought a similar claim in Corr v. Metro that engendered similar confusion. The Court gleans that -- as in Corr -- the Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim is not freestanding, but rather is "parasitic on" Plaintiffs' other claims. It posits that MWAA collected money from Plaintiffs while operating illegally, and so that collection of money was itself illegal, the judge said. As the Court finds that the other counts of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint lack merit, the Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim also fails, the Court concluded. Similarly, Count XI of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that MWAA violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on the constitutional claims discussed and rejected. As they failed to "prove a violation of the underlying constitutional right," the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 1983, the judge ruled. Counts VII and VIII of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint allege that MWAA has violated the Transfer Act and the lease under which it operates National and Dulles. These claims are effectively identical, as the Transfer Act dictates the pertinent terms of the lease. The Plaintiffs contend that MWAA has contravened three provisions of the Transfer Act. If, as Plaintiffs claim, MWAA could only satisfy its obligations under 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(13)(A) by putting excess revenue in a trust fund, the lease and Transfer Act would say so. Instead, the lease and Transfer Act entrust MWAA with discretion. The Plaintiffs have established they would exercise that discretion differently. That, however, does not demonstrate MWAA has violated 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(13)(A), notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' apparent confidence that they know best how to run Dulles, the judge said. In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege any violation of the Transfer Act and airport lease. The Court will therefore dismiss Counts VII and VIII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege in Counts IX and X of their Amended Complaint that MWAA, the Department of Transportation, and the Secretary have all violated the APA. The Court held that MWAA is not a federal instrumentality and is therefore not an "authority of the Government of the United States" subject to the APA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' APA claim against the federal defendants lacks merit whatever its formulation. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/5wST9c from Leagle.com Phil Kerpen, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP. Phil Kerpen, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice. Austin Ruse, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice. Cathy Ruse, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP., Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice. Charlotte Sellier, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice. Joel Sellier, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice. Michael Gingras, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Defendant, represented by Leslie W. Kostyshak, Hunton & Williams LLP & Sona Rewari, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice. Anthony Foxx, Defendant, represented by Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Kimere Jane Kimball, US Attorney's Office & Lauren A. Wetzler, United States Attorney Office. U. S. Department of Transportation, Defendant, represented by Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., United States Attorney's Office & Kimere Jane Kimball, US Attorney's Office. Commonwealth of Virginia, represented by Stuart Alan Raphael, Office of the Attorney General. District of Columbia, Intervenor, represented by Michael Angelo Tilghman, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Karl A. Racine, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Michael Angelo Tilghman, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. MISSION-HOPE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Martinez and Mayra Ruiz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mission-Hope Day Program, LLC; Village Parkway Day Program, LLC; Mission-Hope Day Program Brentwood, LLC; Osgood Road-Day Program, LLC; Mission Blvd. Day Program, LLC; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG17861276 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wage premiums, damages, restitution, and other relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate an adult day care centers that provide services to individuals 18 years old and over with developmental disabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Hill, Esq. Enrique Martinez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL 333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 588-1000 Facsimile: (510) 633-2504 - and - Morris J. Bailer, Esq. 300 Lakeside Drive, Ste. 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)763-9800 Facsimile: (510)835-1417 MISSOURI, USA: Endicott Moves to Certify Class of NCC Inmates ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled FRANKLIN G. ENDICOTT #l57521, Plainttiff No. 1, CRAIG DAWDY #166501, Plaintiff No. 2 v. LARRY ALLEN, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00029-DDN (E.D. Mo.), ask the Court to grant their motion for class certification and for appointment of counsel. Larry Allen is a correctional officer at the Northeast Correctional Center. The Plaintiffs are inmates at the Northeast Correctional Center and are appearing pro se. They allege that the MDOC Kosher diet policy does not provide the necessary foods required for the Judaism/Messianic Sabbath and holy holidays nor do the offender canteens sell kosher foods, which is a clean violation of the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights to practice their religions. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ej97Km8S MOCON INC: Faces "Ellebracht" Lawsuit Over Ametek Merger -------------------------------------------------------- PAT ELLEBRACHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MOCON, INC., ROBERT L. DEMOREST, ROBERT F. GALLAGHER, BRADLEY D. GOSKOWICZ, TOM C. THOMAS, DAVID J. WARD, KATHLEEN IVERSON, and PAUL R. ZELLER, Defendants, Case No. 0:17- cv-01662 (D. Minn., May 18, 2017), Case No. 0:17-cv-01662 (D. Minn., May 18, 2017), alleges that the proxy statement in connection with the sale of the Company to AMETEK, Inc. omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information about the financial projections prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, and omits material information with respect to the process and events leading up to the Proposed Transaction, including material information concerning Baird's conflicts of interest and the confidentiality agreements entered into by potential strategic partners. The Proposed Transaction was valued at approximately $182 million. Defendant MOCON is a Minnesota corporation, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota that designs, manufactures, markets and services products, and provides consulting services, primarily in the test and measurement, analytical instrument and services markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: 952.941.4005 E-mail: mspence@hjlawfirm.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com MY SIZE: Response to Lightcom's Class Status Bid Due Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ My Size, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, that on May 3rd, 2017, Lightcom (Israel) Ltd., an Israeli company, alleging that it is a shareholder of the Company, filed a motion with the Tel Aviv District Court (Financial Division) to approve an action against the Company as a shareholders' class action. The subject matter of the action appears to be an immediate report filed by the Company on April 19th, 2017. The Court ordered the Company to respond to the motion by September 2nd, 2017. The Company is reviewing the action and the motion together with its legal counsel and will report its initial response in due course. NEAL TRUCKING: Final Approval of "Poisson" Suit Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Ronald Poisson, individually and on behalf of all the classes and aggrieved employees v. Neal Trucking, Inc., Randy Neal, David Beal, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order: 1. confirming the preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes only; 2. finally approving the settlement; 3. confirming appointment of the Plaintiff as Class Representative; 4. confirming the appointment of Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq., of Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. and Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq., of The Blanchard Law Group, APC as Class Counsel; 5. approving an award of $48,750 in attorneys' fees to Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq., and Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.; 6. approving an award of actual costs to Class Counsel as follows: a. The amount of $4,573 to the Blanchard Law Group, APC; and b. The amount of $3,479 to Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C.; 7. approving a Class Representative Enhancement Payment of $1,000 to Plaintiff Ronald Poisson; 8. approving Settlement Administration Costs of $5,000 for Claims Administration; 9. approving an award of 75% of $7,500 in civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.), of which $5,625 will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; and 10. directing that the [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Judgment be entered. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sjUsHZ8X The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883-4900 Facsimile: (818) 883-4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com - and - Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Facsimile: (213) 402-3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com NEW RESIDENTIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the securities class action. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, which is referred to as the "Securities Action." On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.). The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls; and (iv) certain related party transactions. The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs, expenses, and fees. On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Securities Action in its entirety. On June 6, 2016, all allegations except those regarding certain related party transactions were dismissed. New Residential intends to vigorously defend the Securities Action. NEW YORK HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ikramov Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Mirzagadayboy Ikramov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Greater New York Home Care, LLC, Case No. 652788/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay time and one half the minimum wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week and spread of hours pay for the days in which the Plaintiff and the Class Members worked in excess often hours as required by the New York Labor Law. Greater New York Home Care, LLC provides home health care to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP. P.C. 1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 Facsimile: (866) 261-5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com NUVASIVE INC: Dec. Trial Set for Securities Class Status Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- A trial has been set for December 18, 2017 to hear NuVasive, Inc.'s appeal on an order granting class certification to the plaintiffs in a securities litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on August 25, 2016, and discovery is proceeding. The plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. On March 22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class certification. The Company filed a petition to appeal the order granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 5, 2017 and the plaintiffs had until April 27, 2017 to respond to the petition. Trial has been set for December 18, 2017. The Company said, "At March 31, 2017, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation." NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company, develops and markets minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally- integrated solutions for spine surgery. Its products focus on applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics used for spinal fusion process. The Company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. PBF ENERGY: Appeal by Chalmette Refining and Eaton Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Chalmette Refining and Eaton's appeal of the judgment on the mini-trial is pending. The Company said, "On September 2, 2011, prior to our ownership of the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Vincent Caruso, et al. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of himself and other Louisiana residents who live or own property in St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish and whose property was allegedly contaminated and who allegedly suffered any personal or property damages as a result of an emission of spent catalyst, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the Chalmette refinery on September 6, 2010. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries, symptoms, and property damage as a result of the release. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages, interest and costs." "In August 2015, there was a mini-trial for four plaintiffs for property damage relating to home and vehicle cleaning. On April 12, 2016, the trial court rendered judgment limiting damages ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 for home cleaning and $25,000 to $75,000 for vehicle cleaning to the four plaintiffs. The trial court found Chalmette Refining and co-defendant Eaton Corporation ("Eaton"), to be solitarily liable for the damages. "Chalmette Refining and Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of the judgment on the mini-trial, which appeal is pending. There is no stay pending appeal. "The potential class members have not been identified as the parties are negotiating a claims process for claims such as home cleaning, vehicle cleaning, and alleged personal injury. The claims process would also include a class notice to identify potential class members. Depending upon the ultimate class size and the nature of the claims, the outcome may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, or cash flows." PBF Energy Inc. ("PBF Energy") was formed as a Delaware corporation on November 7, 2011 and is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company LLC ("PBF LLC"), a Delaware limited liability company, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries. PBF ENERGY: Still Defends "Goldstein" Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. The Company said, "On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., we and PBF Energy Company LLC, and our subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was then owned and operated by Exxon. "The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery. "While we are evaluating the allegations and cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of the resolution of this matter, we believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position or results of operation." PBF Energy Inc. ("PBF Energy") was formed as a Delaware corporation on November 7, 2011 and is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company LLC ("PBF LLC"), a Delaware limited liability company, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries. PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Certify Marlboro Light Smoker's Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARY A. CARROLL and BETTY C. LYNN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., a Foreign Corporation, f/k/a PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Defendant, C.A. No. 03C-08-167 AML (Del. Super.), Judge Abigail M. LeGrow of the Superior Court of Delaware: (i) denied the motion for summary judgment as to preemption because the Plaintiff's claims arise from a state law imposing a general duty not to deceive, not a law creating requirements or prohibitions regarding smoking and health; (ii) denied the motion for class certification because individual issues involving causation and fact of injury predominate over the common issues; and (iii) concluded the motion to strike is moot in light of her ruling on the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff, Mary Carroll, filed the action alleging Philip Morris violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and unjustly enriched itself by marketing and selling its Marlboro Light cigarettes. The long-time smoker of "light" cigarettes seeks to hold the tobacco company that sold the cigarettes liable for economic harm allegedly suffered by the plaintiff and members of a purported class that, if certified, would comprise smokers who purchased "light" cigarettes from the defendant. Confronted with a series of decisions in other jurisdictions denying class certification for similar claims, the plaintiff attempts to distinguish this case on the basis of her allegation that, not only were the cigarettes in question not "safer" than regular cigarettes, they potentially were more harmful due to the mutagenicity of the tar consumers ingested when smoking them. The plaintiff contends the defendant, Philip Morris USA, Inc., fraudulently concealed from consumers and public health agencies that the company's popular cigarettes, Marlboro Lights, "potentially" were more dangerous than full-flavored cigarettes. The plaintiff urges the Court to certify a class consisting of Delaware residents who smoked Marlboro Lights. Philip Morris contends class certification is not appropriate in this case because, among other reasons, the class is not ascertainable and individual issues predominate over those susceptible of common proof. Philip Morris also seeks summary judgment in its favor on the basis that federal law expressly preempts the plaintiff's claims. Finally, Philip Morris seeks to strike the expert report and conclusions proffered by the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Marvin Goldberg. There are two key questions in this case: (1) Does the plaintiff's allegation that Marlboro Lights potentially were more dangerous than full-flavored cigarettes sufficiently distinguish this case from the numerous cases concluding "lights" claims are not amenable to class certification? (2) Does a federal law regulating labeling and advertising for cigarettes preempt the plaintiff's state law claims for consumer fraud? Judge LeGrow held that it reasonably cannot be argued that the DCFA is a "requirement or prohibition" based on "smoking and health." To the contrary, it is a codification of a general duty not to deceive consumers and applies to all manufacturers and sellers of any product, the judge said. The Court held that Philip Morris's argument that the Court should draw a distinction similar to that drawn in Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., and In re Tobacco Litigation is inconsistent with Cipollone v. Liggett Grp. and Altria Group, Inc. v. Good. To focus narrowly on whether the concealment or misrepresentation occurred in an advertisement or promotion is to ignore the limitation in Section 5(b) regarding whether the requirement or prohibition relates to smoking or health, Judge LeGrow concluded. Judge LeGrow further held that most other courts that have considered the issue have reached the same conclusion: consumer fraud claims relating to low-yield cigarettes are not amenable to class certification because of the need for individualized proof regarding fact of injury. Put simply, the record does not support the conclusion or inference that a cigarette that may be more dangerous to consumers has no market value; the evidence of Marlboro Reds' steady market share during the decades that full-flavored cigarettes were described as more dangerous is more than enough proof to defeat any class-wide inference on that point, the judge said. Instead, individual inquiry will be necessary to determine what each individual consumer would have done had Philip Morris not allegedly concealed information regarding the mutagenicity of the tar in Marlboro Lights, the judge added. Accordingly, Judge LeGrow concluded the Plaintiff has not met her burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to show that common issues predominate over individual issues and the motion to certify the class therefore is denied. Having denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, the issue of the admissibility of Dr. Marvin Goldberg's report largely is moot, the judge ruled. Large portions of Dr. Goldberg's report may be unnecessary in view of Judge LeGrow's decision on class certification, the judge said. To the extent consumers, including the Plaintiff, pursue individual claims against Philip Morris and retain Dr. Goldberg, the Court then may address his report's admissibility with a more focused understanding of the scope of his opinion and its relation to the issues in each particular case, the judge noted. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/H1h4lF from Leagle.com Philip M. Finestrauss, Esq., Philip M. Finestrauss, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Stephen R. Fine, Esq., Law Offices of Stephen R.Fine, Manchester, New Hampshire; Finis E. Williams, III, Esquire, Finis E. Williams, III, Esq., Concord, New Hampshire; Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Donald E. Reid, Esq., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, Wilmington, Delaware; John C. Massaro, Esq. and David E. Kouba, Esq., Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC.; Attorneys for Defendant. PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Consolidated Investor Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pier 1 Imports, Inc. still defends itself against a consolidated action filed on behalf of a purported putative class of investors, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2017. Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas -- Dallas Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and December 17, 2015. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Company said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously." Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal products. It offers decorative accents and textiles, such as rugs, wall decorations and mirrors, pillows, bedding, lamps, vases, dried and artificial flowers, baskets, ceramics, dinnerware, candles, fragrances, gifts, and seasonal items; and furniture and furniture cushions that are used in living, dining, office, kitchen and bedroom areas, sunrooms, and patios. The Company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Class Actions on Calif. Labor Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pier 1 Imports, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2017 that it remains a defendant in various class actions pending in California relating to state labor laws. Specifically, the Company is a defendant in lawsuits pending in federal courts in California containing various class action allegations under California state wage-and-hour laws. These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The Company said, "While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, as of the date of this report, the Company does not believe any reasonably foreseeable resolution of these matters would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal products. It offers decorative accents and textiles, such as rugs, wall decorations and mirrors, pillows, bedding, lamps, vases, dried and artificial flowers, baskets, ceramics, dinnerware, candles, fragrances, gifts, and seasonal items; and furniture and furniture cushions that are used in living, dining, office, kitchen and bedroom areas, sunrooms, and patios. The Company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the District Court has issued an order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the case related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims (PPL, LKE and LG&E) in its entirety. In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA. In addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and diminished property values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane Run plant. In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged adverse health effects. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In November 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain previously named plaintiffs. In February 2017, the District Court issued an order dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal claim against LG&E under the Clean Air Act, and directed the parties to submit briefs regarding whether the court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction regarding the remaining state law-only claims. On April 13, 2017, the District Court issued an order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the case in its entirety, subject to certain federal appeals or state court re-filing rights of the parties. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015 and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015. PROCORP LLC: Faces "Harris" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- KENDALL HARRIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PROCORP, LLC and TIMOTHY SCHULTZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11601-RHC-RSW E.D. Mich., May 18, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying its drivers and porters, including Plaintiff, a straight hourly rate of pay for all hours worked each week, including hours in excess of 4p, as opposed to time-and-one-half of their regular rate for hours in excess of 40. Procorp, LLC provides vehicle porter services, including transporting new vehicles on behalf of dealerships. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as non-exempt driver and porter.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C. 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Phone: (201) 630-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com QUALCOMM INC: "Mackay" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Michelle Mackay, Colleen Sparke, Janet Silverness, Melanie Barclay, Tiffany Ringo, Hallie Lingo, Crystal Hohenthaner, Daniel K. Brendtro, Daniel Delier, Paul Nelson, Catherine Kaderavek, Karen Carlet, David Waring and Leon Theodore Lipka III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00148, was removed on April 19, 2017 from the District of Southern California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01903-LHK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA technology that it incorporated into virtually every relevant cellular standard in the last several years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S Hartley, Esq. Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 400-5822 Fax: (619) 400-5832 Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com The Defendant is represented by: Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: abhansali@keker.com - and - David W Rizk, Esq. Keker& Van Nest 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: drizk@kvn.com - and - Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. Keker& Van Nest Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: EMP@kvn.com - and - Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: jsessions@keker.com - and - Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: rvannest@keker.com QUALCOMM INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Rachel L. Miller on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17- cv-00147 was removed on April 19, 2017 from the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01902-LHK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA technology that it incorporated into virtually every relevant cellular standard in the last several years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Scott + Scott LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 233-4565 Fax: (619) 233-0508 Email: cburke@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &Lerach LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119-0165 Tel: (212) 594-5300 - and - Walter W. Noss, Esq. Scott+Scott LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 233-4565 Fax: (619) 233-0508 Email: wnoss@scott-scott.com The Defendant is represented by: Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: abhansali@keker.com - and - David W Rizk, Esq. Keker& Van Nest 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: drizk@kvn.com - and - Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. Keker& Van Nest Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: EMP@kvn.com - and - Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: jsessions@keker.com - and - Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 Email: rvannest@keker.com RANDOLPH CTY, AL: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KANDACE KAY EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DAVID COFIELD, in his official capacity as Randolph County Sheriff, CHRISTOPHER MAY, in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk, JILL PUCKETT, in her official capacity as Magistrate of the Randolph County District Court, and CLAY TINNEY, in his official capacity as the District Court Judge, of the Randolph County District Court, Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala.), move the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action, and the class consisting of: all arrestees who are or who will be jailed in Randolph County who are unable to pay the secured monetary bail amount required for their release. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate Kandace Kay Edwards as class representative, and to appoint their attorneys as class co-counsel. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to schedule a hearing on the matter and to direct the parties to begin class discovery prior to ruling on class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O8iuso8q The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Brooke, Esq. Micah West, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org micah.west@splcenter.org - and - Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. Katherine Hubbard, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 930-3835 E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org katherine@civilrightscorps.org - and - Randall C. Marshall, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF ALABAMA, INC. P.O. Box 6179 Montgomery, AL 36106-0179 Telephone: (334) 420-1741 E-mail: rmarshall@aclualabama.org - and - Brandon Buskey, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2654 E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org The Defendants are represented by: James W. "Jim" Davis, Esq. SECTION CHIEF CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE SECTION OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 E-mail: jimdavis@ago.state.al.us - and - Jamie H. Kidd, Esq. J. Randall McNeill, Esq. WEBB & ELEY, P.C. P.O. Box 240909 Montgomery, AL 36124 Telephone: (334) 262-1850 Facsimile: (334) 262-1772 E-mail: jkidd@webbeley.com rmcneill@webbeley.com - and - John Alvin Tinney, Esq. RANDOLPH COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1430 Roanoke, AL 36274-9121 E-mail: johntinneyattorney@gmail.com REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Strader" Parties Proceeding with Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), the parties are proceeding with discovery. This is a purported class action brought by four California residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section 8(a) of RESPA. Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January 31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either (a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring business to one another under agreements or arrangements. Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements. On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016, and a third amended complaint on May 12, 2016. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court denied the motion on October 6, 2016, without prejudice to defendants' ability to move for summary judgment after discovery. The parties are proceeding with discovery. The case raises significant claims and rests in part on certain interpretations of RESPA by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), which are the subject of pending industry litigation in various jurisdictions. As with all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties. "We believe that we and the joint venture have complied with RESPA, the regulations promulgated thereunder and existing regulatory guidance. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies. The Company will vigorously defend this action," the Company said. Realogy Holdings Corp. ("Realogy Holdings", "Realogy" or the "Company") is a holding company for its consolidated subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC ("Realogy Intermediate") and Realogy Group LLC ("Realogy Group") and its consolidated subsidiaries. Realogy, through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real estate services. Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group. REDDY ICE: July 24 Hearing on QSF Distribution Process ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned IN RE: REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC., Chapter 11, Debtors, Case No. 12-32349-SGJ-11 (N.D. Tex.), Judge Stacey G. Jernigan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, scheduled on July 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., a continued hearing on the Motion for Claims Process, where the Court expects to rule on how to disburse the Reddy Ice Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF"). Reddy Ice, et al., which were, or are, among the country's largest manufacturers and sellers of packaged ice, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on April 12, 2012. Reddy Ice was highly successful in swiftly obtaining confirmation of a prepackaged reorganization plan on May 22, 2012. The bankruptcy case was administratively closed on Sept. 30, 2013. Now, many years later, counsel purportedly acting for the so-called "Indirect Purchaser Class Plaintiffs" has moved to reopen the bankruptcy case, for the sole purpose of asking the Court to approve an "allocation plan, advertisement and claims process" so that counsel for these class plaintiffs may at long-last distribute (after payment of some additional fees and expenses) what is left of a certain class action settlement fund that the Court approved, and that was paid by Reddy Ice to counsel for the Plaintiffs, in May 2012. The Court approved a class action settlement early during the Reddy Ice Chapter 11 case, and counsel for the Plaintiffs (after paying its court-approved legal fees and expenses), has never even notified the Plaintiffs of a claims submission process -- much less disbursed any of the settlement funds to any of the claimants -- i.e., claimants that the Plaintiffs' counsel was charged to "adequately represent." The Court pointed out that the five-year delay is disturbing, and the economics here -- and the likely futility of reliably ascertaining a class of claimants to whom to distribute funds, after all this time -- are equally disturbing. The settlement fund at issue was $700,000. Of that, $406,585 has been expended on professional fees and expenses, leaving $297,503. The costs now projected by the Plaintiffs' counsel for advertising and setting up a claims process is estimated in its pleadings to be another $179,812, which would leave $117,690 to disburse to the class plaintiffs. The thus-far-absent, unidentified class plaintiffs are not individuals or estates of individuals who were maimed or killed. The class Plaintiffs are essentially defined as consumers who bought a package of ice anywhere in the continental United States, which was manufactured by either Reddy Ice or one of two other big ice manufacturers, between nine and sixteen years ago (i.e., during the years 2001- 2008). The putative class action alleged that the big three sellers of packaged ice in America engaged in anti-competitive conduct during the years 2001-2008 and, thus, consumers presumably paid too much for bags of ice. And the Plaintiffs' counsel has all but assured the court that the actual claimants are likely to receive no more than a peppercorn once the remaining settlement funds are disbursed. Judge Jernigan held, "The Court knows that this is the reality of many class action settlements (particularly where consumer products are involved); there is often not a meaningful recovery. And the Court well understands that class actions like this sometimes serve a laudable purpose of deterring questionable business practices. But the situation here (the delay; the obstacles to a reliable and feasible method for disbursing funds that should have been obvious from "Day One") is most disturbing. The Court was told long ago -- in motions and hearings -- that the settlement fund at issue would be combined with a similar settlement fund that had been obtained from another ice manufacturer in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and disbursed under the supervision of that court. That did not come to fruition." "In any event, the Court determined, at a hearing a few weeks ago, that it was necessary to reopen the Reddy Ice bankruptcy case so that the settlement it long-ago approved can finally be somehow implemented. The options for disbursement of the settlement fund, at this point (so many years after any alleged harm), are all imperfect -- to say the least," Judge Jernigan added. "The Court is struggling mightily with how there can be any integrity and legitimacy in a process here -- especially so late in the game," the judge stated. "The Court will not condone a process where no proof of harm to obtain Settlement funds is required, except for a "say-so" checking of a box. To do so would invite mischief. At a minimum, it is not consistent with the integrity normally expected in the bankruptcy system. The Court is also not inclined to allow any more professional fees to be paid from the QSF," the court added. The Court sets forth the following imperfect possibilities for a claims allowance and distribution process, and instructs Plaintiffs' Counsel and any other parties-in-interest who wish to express a position to file briefs within 30 days after the entry of the Order: 1. Option #1: The Plaintiffs' Counsel will place an advertisement in USA Today soliciting claims from persons who might have purchased ice (from Reddy Ice, Arctic, or Home City) during 2001-2008 in one of the 18 states that have been represented by the Plaintiffs' Counsel to permit monetary damages to indirect purchasers. The Claimants will be required to file a proof of claim form with the Bankruptcy Clerk for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, with there being a requirement that claimants include receipts as proof of purchase and sign the proof of claim form under penalty of perjury. After a deadline (60 days perhaps), the Court can decide, based on the number of claims filed (if any), whether claims analysis and objections are warranted and who will do this. If no legitimate claims are filed (or so few are filed that there are excess funds), Options #2 or #3 can be considered. 2. Option #2: Forego a claims process altogether at this point. Simply remit the remaining QSF funds to Reddy Ice to disburse pro rata to the allowed Class 8B claimants under their confirmed plan (general unsecured creditors). 3. Option #3: Cy pres disbursement. Instruct Reddy Ice to, within 30 days, designate a charity to whom to disburse the QSF funds -- a direct payment of the money in the Registry of bankruptcy court will be made to such charity. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/QlplsK from Leagle.com Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., Debtor, represented by Jason S. Brookner, Gray Reed & McGraw LLP, Sarah E. Castle, DLA Piper, LLP, Gregg M. Galardi, DLA Piper, LLP & Vincent P. Slusher, DLA Piper LLP. Reddy Ice Corporation, Consolidated debtor, represented by Lydia Rogers Webb, Gray Reed and McGraw LLP. Ad Hoc Group of First Lien and Second Lien Noteholders, Ad Hoc Group of First Lien and Second Lien Noteholders, Creditor Committee, represented by Meritt Crosby, Kilmer Crosby & Walker PLLC, Joshua Andrew Feltman, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Brian A. Kilmer, Kilmer Crosby & Walker PLLC, Emil A. Kleinhaus, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Daniel A. Rubens, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Official Unsecured Creditors Committee, Creditor Committee, represented by Maria A. Bove, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones Robert Joel Feinstein, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, John A. Morris, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP & Gabrielle A. Rohwer, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones. ROYAL LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus R. Escamilla, for himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees v. Royal Landscape, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC662564 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide employees with meal breaks that commenced within the first five hours of work, and failed to pay them meal break premiums in lieu thereof. Royal Landscape, Inc. is in the business of designing, constructing, and maintaining landscape architectures for commercial and residential facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justian Jusuf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (714) 274-9815 Facsimile: (714)362-3148 - and- Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818)609-0892 SAFE STREETS: Faces "Collins" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAFE STREETS USA LLC; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03760 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2017), alleges that Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Defendant, SAFE STREETS USA LLC is a marketing company.[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 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com SEPHORA USA: "Ye" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement in the class action styled RUIQI YE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv- 05237-EMC (N.D. Cal.), and granted in part and denied in part the related motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards. The case is a putative class action against based on Sephora's decision on or about Nov. 6, 2014, (i.e., during an annual sale for "VIB" customers which gives them a 20% discount on products) to deactivate the accounts of customers who had e-mail addresses associated with @qq.com; @126.com; or @163.com. The Plaintiffs take the position that the decision to deactivate was discriminatory, as qq.com, 126.com, and 163.com are domains based in China and the websites are all in Chinese. Sephora takes the position that, inter alia, it had a nondiscriminatory motive for its action -- i.e., that it was trying to deactivate the accounts of resellers and/or bots. In their operative complaint, the Plaintiffs have asserted three claims for relief against Sephora: (i) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (ii) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1982; and (iii) breach of contract. In August 2016, the Plaintiffs informed the Court that the case had been settled (with the assistance of Judge Corley). Several months later, in January 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Court is satisfied that the class was adequately notified of the settlement and that the means of notice comported with due process. Also, the reaction of the class has been positive -- in response to the class notice, only three requests for exclusion have been made and one objection (presenting no substantive content). Accordingly, the Court grants final approval of the class action settlement. As for the related motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion. The Court approves costs, but finds that both the attorneys' fees and incentive awards requested are excessive. As to fees, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claimed lodestar of $745,307 (based on New York hourly rates) is unreasonable, as is their alternative lodestar of $633,511 (based on California hourly rates). The number of hours spent on discovery and for pleadings and motions appears excessive, and the Plaintiffs achieved only limited success, the Court pointed out. The Court concludes that a fee award of $316,666 is reasonable. That sum is approximately 33-1/3% of the gross settlement fund (well above the 25% benchmark still) and better reflects the limited success achieved. The percentage method provides a fair cross-check on the lodestar, the Court said. As for incentive awards, the Court finds that an incentive award of $3,000 for each named Plaintiff is adequate. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/P7SKsN from Leagle.com Ruiqi Ye, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP. Ruiqi Ye, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas H. Wigdor, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Chen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice, Jeanne M. Christensen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice & Jamie Cameron Couche, Anderson and Poole, P.C.. Yolin Han, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP, Douglas H. Wigdor, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Chen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice, Jeanne M. Christensen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice & Jamie Cameron Couche, Anderson and Poole, P.C.. Sephora USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Ralston Livingston, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Kathryn Grzenczyk Mantoan, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Robert Shapiro, BFKN LLP, pro hac vice, Emily Lee Gesmundo, Barack Ferrazzano, et al., Joshua Wendell Mahoney, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and Nagelberg LLP, pro hac vice, Krista Nicole Nelson, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Nagelberg LLP, pro hac vice & Shermin Kruse, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Nagelberg, pro hac vice. SIGNAL FINANCE: Faces "Castros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ NEREYDA CASTROS and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff (s), v. SIGNAL FINANCE COMPANY LLC, MIAMI FUNERAL SERVICES & CREMATORIES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL FUNERAL HOMES, AND AUXILIADORA FUNERARIA NACIONAL, FIRST CUBAN FINANCIAL INC., HILBERT I. MOHABIR, DAYANA SOSA and ESTRELLA RODERO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21870-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after April 12, 2014, without being compensated minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Corporate Defendants SIGNAL FINANCE COMPANY LLC, MIAMI FUNERAL SERVICES & CREMATORIES, INC., and FIRST CUBAN FINANCIAL INC., provides funeral home and crematory services. Plaintiff's duties included those corresponding to a receptionist, and office attendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma., Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SILVER BAY: Defending Class Suits over Tricon Merger Plan --------------------------------------------------------- Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. has filed supplemental disclosures to a definitive proxy statement, which is the focus of two purported class action complaints filed against the Company, among other defendants. These litigation-related disclosures are available in the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2017, a copy of which can be viewed at https://is.gd/11t4RX As disclosed on February 27, 2017, the Company, Silver Bay Management LLC (Company GP) and Silver Bay Operating Partnership L.P. (Company LP) (and together with the Company and Company GP, the "Company Parties"), entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger with Tricon Capital Group, Inc. (Ultimate Parent), TAH Acquisition Holdings LLC (Tricon), and TAH Acquisition LP (Parent LP) (and together with Ultimate Parent and Parent, the "Parent Parties"). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Silver Bay will merge with and into Parent, with Tricon as the surviving entity. In connection with the Merger, two purported class action complaints have been filed on behalf of stockholders of the Company. On April 5, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Scarantino v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. et al., 0:17-cv-01066-PAM-TNL, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company Parties, members of the Company's board of directors and the Parent Parties. On April 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dell'Osso v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., et al., 1:17-cv- 00969-JKB was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and members of the Company's board of directors (Stockholder Actions". The lawsuits allege, among other matters, that the Company's definitive proxy statement relating to the Merger (Definitive Proxy Statement) contained certain material omissions. The Company said that it believes that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company is making certain disclosures in its Form 8-K filing that supplement and revise those contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement. The litigation-related supplemental disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which is available http://www.sec.gov,along with periodic reports and other information the Company files with the SEC. The Company and the other named defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law or breaches of duty to Silver Bay stockholders, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties and are providing the litigation-related supplemental disclosures below solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger that might arise from further litigation. Nothing in the litigation-related supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the litigation-related supplemental disclosures set forth herein. To the extent that the information set forth herein differs from or updates information contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement, the information set forth herein shall supersede or supplement the information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. All page references are to pages in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and terms used below, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. acquires, renovates, leases and manages single-family properties for rental income and long-term capital appreciation. It is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota. SNAP INC: Faces "Simpson" Suit Over Misleading IPO Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Simpson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Andrew Vollero, Joanna Coles, A.G. Lafley, Mitchell Lasky, Michael Lynton, Stanley Meresman, Scott D. Miller, Christopher Young, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs, & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Allen & Company LLC, BTIG, LLC, C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Connaught (UK) Limited, Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group, LLC, Jefferies LLC, JMP Securities LLC, Liontree Advisors LLC, Luma Securities LLC, Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc., Stifel Financial Corp., Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., UBS Securities LLC, and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. BC662444 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2017), alleges that the Defendants' initial public offering contained statements that were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business and operations, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. In particular, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the number of daily active users ("DAUs") reported by Snap was materially false and misleading and inaccurate; and (ii) as a result, Snap's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Snap Inc. is a camera company most popularly known for its flagship product, Snapchat, which is a camera application that provides users ways to communicate through short videos and images via their mobile devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949)975-0512 Facsimile: (949) 975-0514 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER 821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516)280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com SPARK ENERGY: Faces "Rolland" Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spark Energy, LLC. The case is titled as Janet Rolland, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spark Energy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02680-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., April 20, 2017). Spark provides home electricity and gas services to residential and business customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq. Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 228-9898 Email: mmendelsohn@mskf.net SQUARE INC: Settlement Awaits Arbitrator's Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------- Square, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that after continued negotiation, the parties in a class action lawsuit reached a preliminary global settlement of these suits, which is subject to final approval by the arbitrator. The Company is involved in a class action lawsuit concerning independent contractors in connection with the Company's Caviar business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and, in doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by requiring them to pay various business expenses that should have been borne by Caviar. The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice on May 2, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Levin filed his opening appellate brief regarding the order compelling arbitration of his individual claims on October 7, 2016. The Company filed its answering brief on December 7, 2016, and Mr. Levin filed his reply on December 21, 2016. No hearing date has been set. Mr. Levin also sought an award of penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The parties stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this PAGA claim but that it may instead be pursued by a different courier. Subsequently, couriers Nadezhda Rosen and La'Dell Brewster filed a new PAGA-only claim in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on November 7, 2016. Plaintiffs claim that Caviar misclassified its couriers as independent contractors resulting in numerous violations of the California Labor Code, pursuant to which plaintiffs seek statutory penalties for those violations. In February 2017, the Company participated in a mediation with the parties in these Caviar misclassification suits to explore resolution of the matters at hand. After continued negotiation, the parties reached a preliminary global settlement of these suits, which is subject to final approval by the arbitrator. The Company has made appropriate accruals in the financial statements for the immaterial amounts expected to be paid as settlement. Square, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, Square or the Company) is a cohesive commerce ecosystem that helps its sellers start, run, and grow their businesses -- from managed payments solutions to point of sale, hardware to software, loans to payroll and more. Businesses and individuals can also use Square Cash, an easy way to send and receive money, as well as Caviar, a food ordering service for restaurants. Square was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Francisco, with offices in the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom. SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit on Coupon Market Conspiracy Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- SUPERVALU INC. continues to defend itself in a class action complaint regarding alleged conspiracy of restricting the markets for coupon processing services, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2017. In September 2008, the class action complaint was filed against Supervalu, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that Supervalu and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. All proceedings had been stayed in the case pending the conclusion of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. The final criminal trial concluded in December 2016. The District Court has indicated that it will release the stay of the civil case and issue a scheduling order. A mediation was scheduled for May 22, 2017. SUPERVALU INC., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States. The Company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail. It was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Class Lawsuit on 2003 C&S Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUPERVALU INC. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. in 2003, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2017. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of Supervalu to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted Supervalu's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted Supervalu's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Supervalu and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from Supervalu between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from Supervalu's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest and Supervalu filed its response on May 6, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which is suing Supervalu (the non- arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeals seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a smaller New England class. The District Court's mandatory settlement conference set for February 14-15, 2017 was cancelled by the court and mediation was scheduled for May 25, 2017. The Company said, "Supervalu continues to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the mediation, it is probable that the parties will engage in settlement negotiations, which may result in a settlement of the matter. However, Supervalu cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of the case and the lack of a formal demand on Supervalu by the plaintiffs." SUPERVALU INC., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States. The Company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail. It was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Computer Network Intrusion Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUPERVALU INC. still defends itself in a consolidated class action in connection with criminal intrusions in its computer network, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2017. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusions in its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. The hearing on the appeal before the 8th Circuit was set for May 10, 2017. SUPERVALU INC., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States. The Company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail. It was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. T ROWE PRICE: Potential Class Action on ERISA Breaches Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is facing potential class action over alleged breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiff is a former employee who alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiff is seeking certification of the complaint as a class action. The Company stated, "T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action." T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and institutions. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. The Company was founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. TOTAL CARD: New Jersey Court Dismisses "Judah" Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice the case caption ALI JUDAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL CARD, INC. & JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-5881 (D. N.J.). Sometime before Feb. 10, 2016, the Plaintiff incurred a debt to Verizon Wireless and the debt was declared to be in default. The Plaintiff's debt was then "assigned, placed, or transferred" to Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC. Pinnacle "assigned, placed, or transferred" the debt to TCI for the purposes of collection. On Feb. 10, 2016, TCI sent the Plaintiff a letter attempting to collect the debt, which allegedly totaled $1,649. The Plaintiff alleges that when TCI sent the Collection Letter, the statute of limitations to recover the debt had expired. The Collection Letter explained that TCI was attempting to collect the debt on behalf of its client, Pinnacle. On Sept. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging a violation of Section 1692e and of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The overarching issue is whether TCI's Collection Letter was misleading because it failed to advise the Plaintiff that selecting either of the two installment payment plan options in the letter could create a new debt or contract. TCI contends that the Collection Letter does not misrepresent the amount of debt owed or the "legal status of the debt." Although the statute of limitations has expired, TCI asserts that the Plaintiffs debt is not extinguished and TCI may still attempt to collect the debt. Moreover, TCI points out that the Collection Letter specifically states that Pinnacle will not sue Judah to collect the debt. In addition, a partial payment pursuant to the terms of the Collection Letter would not revive the statute of limitations under New Jersey law, according to TCI. TCI also maintains that because the Collection Letter "mimics" disclosure language approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the language "cannot be deemed false, deceptive or misleading under the FDCPA." As a result, TCI argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Sections 1692e(2)(a) or e(10). Finally, TCI asserts that Plaintiffs claims under Section 1692f should be dismissed because he fails to identify additional misconduct that is not otherwise encompassed by a different provision of the FDCPA, namely Section 1692e. Id. at 11-12. The Court held that the Plaintiff argues that the Collection Letter language is deceptive because it only indicates that Pinnacle cannot sue on the debt, not TCI; however, the Plaintiff never explains how TCI could sue on the debt, which is a necessary underpinning of Plaintiffs argument. First, the statute of limitations has run as to whomever holds the debt, the court said. More importantly, TCI indicated in the Collection Letter that it was hired by Pinnacle, the owner of the debt, to attempt to collect on the debt. However, merely being retained to collect a debt does not convey the ownership of the debt to the debt collector, the court pointed out. As a result, the Court doubts that TCI would have standing to bring suit against Plaintiff to enforce the debt. In addition, assuming that the Court concluded that a new partial payment contract could have been created through the Collection Letter, Plaintiff provides no authority indicating that Pinnacle could transfer this new "settlement debt" to a new party for collection purposes. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Section 1692e are dismissed as Plaintiff fails to state a claim under this subsection. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint, if he so chooses. If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal will be with prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies the opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/m950Sz from Leagle.com Ali Judah, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC. Ali Judah, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC. Total Card, Inc., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A. MONTOYA, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP. TOWN OF BROOKLINE: Faces "Baez" Suit in District Court Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town of Brookline. The case is titled Juana Baez, Cruz Sanabria, Rogelio Rodas, Demetrius Oviedo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Town of Brookline, Massachusetts Brookline Police Commissioners, Neil Wishinsky, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Nancy Daly, In her Individual and Official Capacities, Ben Franco, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Nancy Heller, In her Individual and Official Capacities and Bernard Greene, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10661-GAO (D. Mass., April 19, 2017). Town of Brookline Massachusetts Brookline Police Commissioners is a government agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brooks A. Ames, Esq. Brookline Justice League, Inc. 1309 Beacon Street, 3rd Floor Brookline, MA 02446 Tel: (617) 763-5526 Email: brooksames1@gmail.com UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces "Dittman" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UPMC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The case is titled as Barbara A. Dittman, Gary R. Douglas, Alice Pastirik, Joann Decolati, Tina Sorrentino, Kristen Cushman and Shannon Molyneaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UPMC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and UPMC McKeesport, Defendants, Case No. 149-WAL-2017 (Pa. Sup., April 20, 2017). The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine educates physicians who are science-based, skilled, and compassionate clinicians prepared to meet the challenges of practicing medicine in the 21st century, and educates investigators who are prepared to conduct cutting-edge biomedical research focused on bettering the human condition and advancing the fundamental understanding of medical science.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TOYOTA MOTORS: Reply to "Robey" Complaint Continued to July 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL ROBEY, MOE ASGHARNIA and JAMES COMB Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07212-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, ordered that the Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint will be continued from May 26, 2017, until July 10, 2017. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on Feb. 24, 2017. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 7, 2017, containing significant amendments. On May 10, 2017, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court entered an order granting an extension of time until May 26, 2017 for the Defendant to file a response to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Parties are continuing discussions to determine whether it is feasible to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. They agree that a 45-day continuance of the deadline for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint will facilitate the parties' settlement discussions, and result in a more efficient expenditure of judicial resources. The parties have made some progress in their discussions and do not presently believe a further continuance will be necessary. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 stipulation and order is available at https://is.gd/L5d0xO from Leagle.com Michael Robey, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Moe Asgharnia, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. James Comb, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Tamara Alicia Bush, Dykema Gossett LLP, Janet L. Conigliaro, DYKEMA, pro hac vice & John Mark Thomas, Dykema Gossett PLLC. TRC COMPANIES: Faces "Delarue" Lawsuit Over New Mountain Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA DELARUE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRC COMPANIES, INC., CHRISTOPHER P. VINCZE, RICHARD H. GROGAN, JOHN A. CARRIG, F. THOMAS CASEY, STEPHEN M. DUFF, STEPHANIE C. HILDEBRANDT, KATHLEEN M. SHANAHAN, KEITH TRENT, DENNIS E. WELCH, NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, L.L.C., NEW MOUNTAIN PARTNERS IV, L.P., BOLT INFRASTRUCTURE PARENT, INC., and BOLT INFRASTRUCTURE MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00828 (D. Conn., May 18, 2017), alleges that the Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed acquisition of TRC Companies, Inc. by affiliates of New Mountain Partners IV, L.P. and New Mountain Capital, L.L.C. for June 8, 2017, omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants allegedly violated the Securities Exchange Act. First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding TRC's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., in support of its so-called fairness opinion. Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers and directors. Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the terms of the non-disclosure and standstill agreements executed by TRC and the prospective bidders. Fourth, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Houlihan. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of TRC will receive $17.55 in cash for each share of TRC common stock. Defendant is a national engineering, environmental consulting, and construction management firm that provides integrated services to the energy, environmental, and infrastructure markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 992-4523 TREEHOUSE FOODS: Shareholder Class Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------- Treehouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Public Employees' defendants had until May 26, 2017 to file a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have until June 26, 2017 to file a response, and defendants have until July 28, 2017 to file a reply." On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a putative class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and including November 2, 2016, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016- CH-16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint, like Wells, is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste. All three complaints make substantially similar allegations (though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. The Company said, "We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi as the lead plaintiff. The Public Employees' defendants had until May 26, 2017 to file a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have until June 26, 2017 to file a response, and defendants have until July 28, 2017 to file a reply." "Additionally, due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells have entered a stipulation deferring the litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel in Wells receiving notification of a settlement of Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the Parties. In Lavin, the parties are currently negotiating the terms of a similar stay. Accordingly, the next status dates in Wells and Lavin are October 30, 2017 and August 4, 2017, respectively." TreeHouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaged foods and beverages with more than 50 manufacturing facilities across the United States, Canada, and Italy that focuses primarily on private label products for both retail grocery and food away from home customers. TROPICAL FALLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Guerra" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yunet Ibarra Guerra, on himself and all others similarly situated v. Tropical Falls, Inc., David Bryan, and Manuel Claro, Case No. 1:17-cv-21938-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a landscape services company in Maimi, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over False Actual Fare Description ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Gayed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC, Raiser, LLC and Travis Kalanick, Case No. 1:17-cv-03139-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' materially misleading and deceptive representations to Uber X riders concerning the "actual fare" charged by Uber's Upfront Pricing model. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a technology company based in San Francisco, California, that offers a smartphone application, the Uber App, to connect riders looking for transportation to independent transportation providers, or drivers, looking for riders. Uber USA LLC is engaged in the business of providing lead generation services to independent transportation providers in New York City who use the Uber X software product. Rasier, LLC is a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc., headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 217 Centre Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 212-847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend against shareholder class action lawsuits. Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of our current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the court. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 10, 2016. On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion, reaffirming the district court's dismissal of the alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and reversing the district court's dismissal of the alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, which the Ninth Circuit denied. The Company plans to vigorously defend itself against these claims; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was incorporated in the State of California in 2003 as Pera Networks, Inc. In 2005, Pera Networks, Inc. changed its name to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and commenced its current operations. In June 2010, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was re-incorporated in Delaware. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries develop high performance networking technology for service providers and enterprises. UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Veliz and Aguilar Sue for OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Veliz and Jason Aguilar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. University of Southern California and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC662567 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break. University of Southern California is a private research university in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aanand Ghods-Mehtani, Esq. Lisa M. Watanabe-Peagler, Esq. RUSHOVICH MEHTANI LLP 5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013 Telephone: (323)433-9094 Facsimile: (323) 395-5507 E-mail: amehtani@rmlawpartners.com lwatanabe@rmlawpartners.com UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "Daugherty" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- WINIFRED J. DAUGHERTY, STEVEN MILLARD, and GLORIA JACKSON, Individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Chicago Retirement Income Plan and the University of Chicago Contributory Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03736 (N.D. Ill., May 18, 2017), alleges that: -- instead of leveraging the Plans' substantial bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, Defendant failed to adequately investigate, examine, and understand the real cost to plan participants for administrative services, thereby causing the Plans and participant investors to pay grossly excessive and unreasonable fees for administrative services; -- Defendant failed to regularly monitor all the Plans' investment choices and for periodically reviewing and evaluating the entire investment choice menu and retained certain investment options for the Plans that historically and consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive fees; and -- Defendant selected as the Plans' principal capital preservation fund, an insurance company fixed-income account, the TIAA Traditional Annuity, that prohibited participants from re- directing their investment in the Traditional Annuity into other investment choices during employment except in ten annual installments. The case alleges breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The University of Chicago is a private, nondenominational, coeducational research university.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe St. #3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-346-2222 Fax: 312-346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com - and - Michael McKay, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: 480 428 0145 Fax: 866 505 8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com mmckay@schneiderwallace.com jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net scarson@bm.net enoteware@bm.net VEREIT INC: Status Conference Held in American Realty Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a status conference before the court was scheduled for May 16, 2017, in the case, In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation. Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors, among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP, filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in part by the court at oral argument on June 1, 2016. The Company and the OP filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint on July 29, 2016. On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain prior rulings by the court. The third amended complaint was filed on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to file new answers. Document production is substantially complete. Plaintiffs in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action filed a motion for class certification on March 15, 2017 and defendants are required to respond to the motion by May 5, 2017. A status conference before the court was scheduled for May 16, 2017. VEREIT(R) is a Maryland corporation, incorporated on December 2, 2010, that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is a full-service real estate operating company with investment management capabilities that operates through two reportable segments, its real estate investment ("REI") segment and its investment management segment, Cole Capital(R) ("Cole Capital"). VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners Case Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., remains pending. In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. VEREIT(R) is a Maryland corporation, incorporated on December 2, 2010, that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is a full-service real estate operating company with investment management capabilities that operates through two reportable segments, its real estate investment ("REI") segment and its investment management segment, Cole Capital(R) ("Cole Capital"). VIACOM INC: New Directors Dismissed from Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Viacom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has dismissed the New Directors from the class action lawsuit without prejudice. Between June 17, 2016 and August 1, 2016, three substantially similar purported class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by purported Viacom stockholders, against Viacom and Viacom's directors at the time (the "Incumbent Directors"), as well as National Amusements, Inc. ("National Amusements") and NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC (together, "NAI"), and were subsequently consolidated into one action. The action -- brought on behalf of the class of all holders of Viacom Class B common stock except the named defendants and any person or entity affiliated with any of the defendants -- alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the incumbent director defendants and NAI, and alleges that the Viacom directors who joined the Board of Directors subsequent to the filing of the actions (the "New Directors") aided and abetted these breaches. In addition to damages and attorneys' fees, the action seeks "such relief as the Court deems just and proper." All defendants, including Viacom and the Incumbent Directors, have moved to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in November 2016, and we again moved to dismiss the action. In March 2017, plaintiffs and the New Directors petitioned the court to dismiss the New Directors from the lawsuit, and the court dismissed the New Directors from the lawsuit without prejudice. Viacom is home to premier global media brands that create compelling television programs, motion pictures, short-form content, applications ("apps"), games, consumer products, social media experiences and other entertainment content for audiences in more than 180 countries. Viacom operates through two reporting segments: Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment. VISA INC: Settlement Reached in Merchant Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that it entered into an agreement in principle on March 8, 2017 with merchant class plaintiffs to settle, on a national basis, the active class actions filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The settlement remains subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and court approval. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. It has a strategic partnership agreement with Oman Arab Bank to convert the bank's current electron cards to chip- and-PIN debit cards. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Proceedings on EMV Chip Liability Shift Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. continues to defend itself in a legal action involving EMV chip liability shift, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On March 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On March 20, 2017, Visa and MasterCard filed a motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or, in the alternative, to stay the action. The motion is pending. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. It has a strategic partnership agreement with Oman Arab Bank to convert the bank's current electron cards to chip- and-PIN debit cards. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY: Williams Seeks Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Williams moves to certify his case captioned DAVID WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, DAVID HOFFERT, Individually, BRANDON PENROD, Individually, JAMIE CORSON, Individually, and CHERYL COOK, Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00181-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), as a class action and to have his counsel appointed as class counsel. On April 25, 2017, the complaint was filed alleging the Warsaw Community School Corporation and its agents violates and has violated for at least the past three years, the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons for "time worked" and for overtime after their 40th hour of work in a week. The class Williams seeks to represent consists of: All persons currently or formerly employed as school bus drivers from April, 2014, to the present who were not paid for "hours worked" and/or "overtime" as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LOkuD7Ji The Plaintiff is represented by: THE LAW OFFICE OF LOREN K. ALLISON Loren K. Allison, Esq. 1214 Park Ave. Fort Wayne, IN 46807 Telephone: (260) 466-5205 E-mail: info@lkallison.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher T. Pottratz, Esq. Randall G. Hesser, Esq. WARRICK & BOYN, LLP 121 W. Franklin Street, Suite 400 Elkhart, IN 46516-3278 Telephone: (574) 294-7491 Facsimile: (574) 294-7284 E-mail: cpottratz@warrickandboyn.com rhesser@warrickandboyn.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Finish Consumer Claims Process in 2017 --------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the administrative consumer claims process in relation to the settlement of class action suits is expected to be completed this year. The Company said, "We have vigorously defended against numerous lawsuits pending in the United States relating to certain of our front load washing machines. In 2016, we reached final agreement on a settlement that will resolve all such class action lawsuits (except for attorneys fee in an immaterial case) and received court approval. We are proceeding through the administrative consumer claims process to implement the terms of the settlement, which will be complete in 2017." Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and markets home appliances and related products worldwide. The Company's principal products include laundry appliances, refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances, dishwashers, mixers, and other small domestic appliances. Whirlpool Corporation sells its products to retailers, distributors, dealers, builders, and other manufacturers. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan. WOOD GROUP: Fenley Moves for Certification of 3 Workers Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TOMMY L. FENLEY, WILLIAM PEVETO, BROCKROBERT TAGAROOK and LEWIS WHITMIRE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-00326-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), ask the Court to certify these classes under the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law: * All current and former employees of [WGM] who were classified with the paycode "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate," and who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection Department as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in Ohio in any workweek between the applicable limitations period (January 26, 2013 for Counts II and III, and January 26, 2011 for Count IV) and the present" ("The Ohio Class"); * All current and former employees of [WGM] who were classified with the paycode "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate," and who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection Department as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in Pennsylvania in any workweek between the applicable limitations period (November 21, 2013 for Count VIII and November 21, 2012 for Count IX) and the present" ("The Pennsylvania Class"); and * All current and former employees of [WGM] who were classified with the paycode "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate," and who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection Department as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in Illinois in any workweek between the applicable limitations period (November 21, 2013 for Counts V and VI, and November 21, 2011 for Count VII) and the present" ("The Illinois Class"). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BIQ0uMsm The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com WORLD GYM: Kim Sues Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer -------------------------------------------------------------- Lovene Kim, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Gym International, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC662568 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), alleges that the Defendants repeatedly made unauthorized electronic transfer of funds from the Plaintiffs and Class members' accounts and failed to return the unlawfully obtained money. World Gym International, LLC operates a fitness center company located at 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California, 90067. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 622-6469 Facsimile: (213) 622-6019 E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com WPX ENERGY: 2nd Motion for Class Certification Pending ------------------------------------------------------ WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' second motion for class certification in the Royalty litigation remains pending. The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in Colorado, breach of implied duty to market, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future reporting. This matter was removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico where the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification." "In March 2017, plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification to the Tenth Circuit. "In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment, accounting and injunctive relief. "On August 16, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their motion for reconsideration and filed a second motion for class certification, and the Court held a hearing on that motion on January 24, 2017 but has not yet ruled. "At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to these claims." YIRENDAI LTD: Still Defends ADS Consolidated Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Yirendai Ltd. still defends itself in a consolidated class action case related to its American depositary shares, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in our ADSs between May 11, 2016 and August 24, 2016: Lefter v. Yirendai Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06437-MFW-AGR (C.D. Cal.) and Roh v. Yirendai Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06506-MFW-AGR (C.D. Cal.). The action alleges that the Company's public press releases dated May 11, 2016 and August 9, 2016 contained misstatements or omissions relating to the Company experiencing an increasing amount of fraud related to customer application for loans and the potential negative impact that the Chinese government's implementation of new anti-fraud regulations could have on the Company's business. On November 29, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the cases and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On January 27, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On March 28, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The action remains at its preliminary stages. The Company said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously." Yirendai Ltd. operates as an online consumer finance marketplace that connects borrowers and investors primarily in the People's Republic of China. It offers standard and fasttrack loan products. The Company also provides investing tools. The Company was founded in 2012 and is based in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. Yirendai Ltd. is a subsidiary of Creditease Holdings (Cayman) Limited. ZAGG INC: Stotz-Charles Suit v. mophie Underway ----------------------------------------------- Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against the case, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles v. mophie inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv- 08898-GW-FFM. On January 13, 2017, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles, individually and on behalf of a purported class, filed a first amended class action complaint alleging that they purchased certain external battery packs and that the battery packs did not extend the life of the phones' internal batteries as advertised and adversely affected the phones' internal battery life. Plaintiffs allege violations of California's unfair competition law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, New York's unlawful deceptive acts and practices statute, and New York's false advertising law. The Company has denied all liability and will defend the claims and otherwise respond to the allegations. This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. ZAGG(R) Inc and its subsidiaries are innovation leaders in mobile tech accessories for smartphones and tablets. For over 10 years, ZAGG has developed creative product solutions that enhance and protect mobile devices for consumers around the world. The Company has an award-winning product portfolio that includes screen protection, power cases, power management, personal audio, mobile keyboards, and cases sold under the ZAGG, InvisibleShield(R), mophie(R), and IFROGZ(R) brands. ********* 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 * * *