/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170627.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 127 Headlines ADVANCED RETAIL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hutton" Suit Claims ADVOCATE HEALTH: Pension Plan Participants to Challenge Ruling AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Seeks People Exposed to Asbestos at Caloola AVINGER INC: "Olberding" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California BEALL'S OUTLET: Faces "Raymondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CANADA: Decision Pending in Balmoral Tenants' Class Action CAPITAL ONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls CARDCONNECT: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Solicitation Statement CENTRAL FEDERAL: Purcell Julie Investigates Potential Claims CENTURYLINK INC: Says Remaining Funds to be Paid Soon CHIASMA INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to July 17 CHINA AGRITECH: Lane Powell Attorney Discusses 9th Circuit Ruling CIGNA CORPORATION: Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit Pending CIGNA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Franco" Suit in New Jersey COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Warren, et al. Case Remains Pending COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Class Suit Dismissed CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Delaware Class Action Dismissed CU BANCORP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Proposed PacWest Merger DEL TACO: Class Certification Motion Underway in Employee Suit DEL TACO: Discovery Pending in Former Del Taco Employee Suit DELTA NATURAL: Defends 2 Class Suits over PNG Merger DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Litigation Deal Approved DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: "Soontjens" and "Shumake" Suits Underway DYNEGY INC: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Gas Index Pricing Suit EHEALTH INC: California Suits in Preliminary Stage EL POLLO: Parties in "Olvera" Suit Engaged in Settlement Talks EL POLLO: Huston et al. Challenge Motion to Dismiss Suit EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: "Sponn" Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Dismiss FACEBOOK INC: Settles Matt Campbell's Privacy Class Action FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing in "Smilovits" Case Appeal Underway FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial Scheduled in Sleep Tracking Lawsuit FITBIT INC: Arbitration Bid in Heart Rate Tracking Suit Pending FITBIT INC: Securities Litigation Pending in California HUGOTON ROYALTY: Pretrial Discovery Underway in Royalty Suit ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Employee Class Action Pending in W.D. Wash. ILG INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Mass Action Pending IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Taps Wilmer Cutler as Counsel INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Briefing in Kleen Products Suit Underway INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture's Class Suit Underway INVESTORS BANCORP: Faces "Fordell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT JUICE GENERATION: Faces "Khadka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LANNETT COMPANY: Case Management Orders Expected in Summer 2017 LANNETT COMPANY: Still Defends Amended Class Action Complaint LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Underway LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Data Privacy Litigation Dismissed LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion for Class Certification Pending LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suits Underway LENDINGCLUB CORP: Federal Consumer Class Action Underway LIFE ALERT: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval LOBSTERS IN MOCEAN: "Matthew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages M&T BANK: Trial in Securities Litigation to Begin June 2018 MAINTEX INC: "Tamayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Ise" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports MENARD INC: Faces "Santti" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MESQUITE SERVICES: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Transfer Case Venue Denied MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Suit over 2017 Offering Underway MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Merger Suits in Del. & Texas Dismissed OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces "Huseman" Suit Over False Company Reports OMEGA PROTEIN: Diehl Action Still Pending, Malone Suit Nixed OMEGA PROTEIN: "Ahern" Lawsuit Goes to S.D.N.Y. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Paddock" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Galestan" Suit Remains Pending PAC ANCHOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Mosquera" Suit Says PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Mental Health Care PIER A BATTERY: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PTC THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway RAYONIER INC: Insurance Carriers to Fund Settlement Payment REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Still Pending in California RENT-A-CENTER: Hall and DePalma Suits Pending RES-CARE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Employees OT REVLON CONSUMER: Suit over Elizabeth Arden Merger Pending RINGCENTRAL INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Classes Pending SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss "Parmelee" Suit Pending SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Wage-and-Hour Suit Pending in California SNAP INC: "Simpson" Class Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif. SOUTHERN COPPER: "Lacey" Class Action in Discovery SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Still Defends "Ubaldi" Suit STRADENERGY SERVICES: Tristan Partners Seeks to Discontinue Case SUPREME INDUSTRIES: California Class Suit Still Pending TELENAV INC: Trial in "Gergetz" Suit Set for January 2020 TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Aug. 27 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Perales" TJX COMPANIES: Defends Class Suits on Labor, Pricing Practices TRUE FITNESS: Malaysia Gym Members Mull Class Action TURN KEY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ortiz" Suit Claims TYSON FOODS: Motion to Modify Judgment in "Edwards" Suit Pending TYSON FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Pending TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending TYSON FOODS: Ruling on "Bouaphakeo" Lump Sum Award Still Pending TYSON FOODS: Consolidation of Two Oklahoma Suits Pending UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Board Discusses CEO's Fate Amid Class Actions UGI CORPORATION: Customer Appeal Pending in Eighth Circuit UNITED HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages UNITED JEWISH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Chez" Action Claims UNIVERSAL HAIR: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees URBAN JUSTICE: Illegally Diverts Trust Funds, Suit Claims VECTOR GROUP: Three Class Actions Pending Against Liggett WELLS FARGO: Discovery Underway in Remanded Class Suits WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Ongoing WELLS FARGO: Judge Likely to Approve Phony Accounts Settlement WESTERN DIGITAL: Suit by Union Asset and KBC Still Pending WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal in Ritz Camera Suit Still Pending WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery Stayed in SD Cards Class Action WESTERN REFINING: Says NTI Merger Litigation in Earliest Stages WESTERN REFINING: Tesoro Merger Litigation Dismissed ZYNGA INC: Settlement in "Lee" Won Final Approval * Belgium Declares New Provisions on Class Action Procedure ********* ADVANCED RETAIL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hutton" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reginald Hutton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Retail Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv- 01567-D (N.D. Tex., June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. Advanced Retail Solutions, Inc. offers a wide range of maintenance and construction services for third party retail and commercial business facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Pension Plan Participants to Challenge Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that sponsors of church-related pension plans are celebrating a Supreme Court decision upholding their right to be exempt from federal pension rules, but participant advocates vow to continue challenging them on other legal points and in new venues, including state courts. The unexpectedly unanimous Supreme Court decision June 5 brought a collective sigh of relief from religiously affiliated health-care systems that long have operated as exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, with its detailed rules on funding obligations, vesting, reporting, disclosure and more. Disagreeing with plan participants, who argued that there needed to be a direct church connection, the Supreme Court found pension plans did not have to be established by a church to be exempt from ERISA, as long as they are controlled by or associated with one. For the three health-care systems consolidated into the Supreme Court case, Dignity Health, Advocate Health Care and Saint Peter's Healthcare System, an opposite conclusion by the justices would have left the sponsors and other health-care systems in related cases staring at a combined $4 billion funding shortfall for roughly 300,000 plan participants. The Supreme Court's view of the matter, which was limited to interpreting what Congress intended when it created the exemption in 1980, is in sharp contrast to conclusions reached by three federal appellate courts in 2015 and 2016, upholding District Court rulings that only churches can set up church plans and disallowing the health systems' ERISA exemption. The trend of courts siding with plan participants led to several multimillion- dollar settlements in recent years, including the Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, Baton Rouge, La., in May and from Providence Health & Services, Renton, Wash.; Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Hartford, Conn.; and Trinity Health Corp., Livonia, Mich., all in 2016. A 'ringing endorsement' In the Supreme Court opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that a strict reading of the 1980 law that created the exemption allows it if a pension plan is set up for a "principal-purpose organization," such as a board overseeing a benefit plan, that is associated with a church. The Supreme Court decision "is a ringing endorsement of the judicial precedent that has existed since 1980, and the regulatory pronouncements" from the IRS, Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., all of which filed an amicus brief supporting the plan sponsors, said Howard Shapiro, a New Orleans attorney with Proskauer Rose who is defending many Catholic health-care entities in stayed class actions and who submitted a Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of eight clients. "It is not often in our lifetime that we see a scenario like this," he said. Pension plans run by church-affiliated organizations can choose to be covered by ERISA, but it's not required. Those not wanting ERISA coverage get an IRS private-letter ruling allowing the exemption, a practice that also has been challenged in many of the 100 or so participant class-action lawsuits against church- affiliated plans that have sprung up since 2013. Advocates for plan participants, devastated by the decision, say they now will focus on what the Supreme Court did not address. "The court did not decide whether the plans involved in the cases before it are maintained by the type of organization envisioned by Congress when it enacted the law," said Karen Ferguson, director of the Pension Rights Center in Washington. Ms. Kagan's opinion held a footnote that the question of direct association with a church was not before the court. Vows to continue Plan participants will continue filing these cases "to ensure that the 'church plan' exemption is claimed only in appropriate circumstances," promised Karen L. Handorf, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-counsel for many of the plaintiffs. "It's going to be a long road but we are optimistic," said Ms. Ferguson. "It was only the first round. We are optimistic that the courts will realize that the only organizations intended by Congress were these church pension boards and that there is nothing in the legislative history that they intended to exempt a freestanding pension plan established by a hospital," she added. She worries that the Supreme Court decision could wind up hurting millions of workers if other non-profits associated with churches, such as social services agencies and universities, also seek church-plan status. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised that question in a concurring opinion. While the decision correctly interprets the statutory text, she wrote, "I am nonetheless troubled by the outcome of these cases," which she said were spurred by the failure of unregulated church plans. "It is not at all clear that Congress would take the same action today with respect to some of the largest health-care providers in the country" that compete with companies subject to ERISA, she wrote. Answering those questions is likely to be the focus of the next wave of plaintiff lawsuits, which legal experts on both sides see taking place increasingly in state courts under laws covering contractual promises, fiduciary standards and the right to bring claims, all of which would not be preempted by ERISA. "There are a lot of other things that are often significant. Those questions were not before the court and the court did not answer them," said Ronald Cluett -- rcluett@capdale.com -- of counsel to tax law firm Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, who specializes in employee benefits compliance. "I think that the people who did not prevail will seek other ways," including scrutinizing how closely plan sponsors are affiliated with churches, and how the benefits committees are structured, he said. Brian Netter -- bnetter@mayerbrown.com -- co-leader of law firm Mayer Brown's Supreme Court and appellate practice in Washington, agreed. "Participants will have to be a lot more careful of how they connect these hospital plans to ERISA, and most will not succeed. Whenever one door closes another window somewhere opens up. There's too much for people to give up," he said. Mr. Shapiro of Proskauer Rose also expects plan participants and their lawyers to continue to put pressure on church plan sponsors, but he said the Supreme Court ruling "very much strengthens the positions of the church-plan community. It will give the (plan sponsor) defendants an upper hand." [GN] AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Nick Wingfield, writing for The New York Times, reports that Amazon's warehouses have a reputation as often grueling environments for the workers who pick, pack and load orders there. Managers are pushed hard, too, according to the plaintiff in a new lawsuit against the internet retailer. The lawsuit, filed this month by Michael Ortiz, a former shift manager for Amazon in several warehouses in the San Francisco Bay Area, accuses Amazon of failing to pay him overtime wages. The suit, filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, says that Amazon improperly classified Mr. Ortiz as exempt from overtime in violation of California labor regulations. Mr. Ortiz's lawyer, Scott Cole, said he would seek class-action status for the suit with the addition of other plaintiffs. Kristen Kish, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the company would not comment on pending litigation. While most of the entry-level workers at Amazon's warehouses, known as associates, are eligible for overtime pay, salaried managers are not under Amazon policy. In an interview, Mr. Ortiz, 34, said he and other managers had been promised when they were hired that their jobs would consist mostly of supervisory work. Instead, most of his job ended up being manual labor, some of it dangerous, he said. "When we were hired, we were told we would be managers working on high-end things," Mr. Ortiz said. "In reality, the bulk of the managers got stuck doing very tedious work which ultimately caused me to be injured." There have been other cases in which workers have argued that Amazon improperly denied them overtime. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Amazon warehouse workers were not entitled to overtime pay for the time they spent waiting to pass through security screenings, which are used to deter theft. Cases such as Mr. Ortiz's are more common and could have a better chance of success, especially in California, which is among the states regarded as having the most employee-friendly labor laws in the country. In California, the burden of proof is on employers to show that workers should not receive overtime pay, which they can do by demonstrating that more than half of a manager's job consisted of managerial responsibilities, labor lawyers said. "Amazon faces a heavy burden to show that the workers truly fit within the narrow exemption to overtime pay that the California Legislature established," said Jahan Sagafi, a lawyer at Outten & Golden in San Francisco who represents workers in lawsuits against employers, but is not involved in Mr. Ortiz's case. "Just assigning them managerial-sounding work may not be enough, depending on how much they do and what it entails, exactly." Mr. Ortiz was working as a shift manager at an Amazon delivery station in Richmond, Calif. He said he had worked for Amazon for about 11 months until he was terminated last December after he slipped and cut his eye while climbing on a conveyor belt to free up a jam of packages. Standing on a conveyor belt is a violation of Amazon policy. Mr. Ortiz said his supervisor encouraged him to report that he had fallen on the stairs and that he had later been fired by Amazon when witness accounts conflicted with his version of events. Mr. Ortiz first spoke to a reporter for The New York Times early this year, not long after his injury. At the time, Mr. Ortiz said a friend and colleague in the same facility at Amazon had sustained the injury, not him. In a phone interview after filing the suit, Mr. Ortiz apologized for the deception, saying that at the time of his first contact he was appealing his termination at the company. "There was a small chance that I would be able to keep my job, so that is why I had to distance myself from the story," he said. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Seeks People Exposed to Asbestos at Caloola --------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Kennedy, writing for Sunbury Leader, reports that one of Australia's foremost class action law firms has begun a search for people who may have been exposed to asbestos at the former Caloola site in Sunbury. Maurice Blackburn has advertised for potentially affected people who worked at the site between 1971 and 1993 to come forward, with senior associate Victoria Keays confirming to the Leader the search followed the diagnosis of a former resident with a terminal asbestos-related disease. "Maurice Blackburn is in the early stages of investigating a potential asbestos exposure claim for a former resident at Caloola," she said. "Since the ad was published, we have been contacted by a number of former workers at Caloola who have shared with us their recollections of asbestos at the site. "This information will form an important part of our investigation into the options available for our client. "Exposure to asbestos fibres can be deadly, but symptoms often don't emerge for decades, so historical research like this is critical to any asbestos investigation." The Caloola asylum operated at Jacksons Hill. The site later became home to Victoria University from 1994 to 2011. It is now largely unoccupied, however several community groups used buildings on the site. A search for a tenant of the heritage-listed site stretches several years with rising maintenance costs caused by vandalism and irregular upkeep cited as a growing impediment in the search. [GN] AVINGER INC: "Olberding" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Kyle Olberding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avinger, Inc.; Jeffrey M. Soinski; John B. Simpson; Matthew B. Ferguson; Donald A. Lucas; James B. McElwee; James G. Cullen; Canaccord Genuity, Inc.; Cowen and Company LLC; Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.; BTIG, LLC; and Stephens, Inc., Case No. 17CIV02307, filed on May 25, 2017, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv- 03398-CW to the proceeding. The case alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act. Avinger, Inc. operates a commercial-stage medical device company in Redwood City, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. Benjamin J. Tolman, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com dgavril@wsgr.com btolman@wsgr.com BEALL'S OUTLET: Faces "Raymondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Marybeth Raymondo, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beall's Outlet Stores, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-01064-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Beall's Outlet Stores, Inc. operates a retail store in Winter Haven, in Polf County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com CANADA: Decision Pending in Balmoral Tenants' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Globe and Mail and The Canadian Press report that a city crackdown on a notorious hotel in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and the scores of tenants displaced as a result have galvanized neighbourhood residents and advocates, who say they'll fight to maintain the Balmoral Hotel as social housing. "I really hope by having this community block party that we come together and stop what the landlords are doing -- not only the Sahotas, but other landlords, too," Jack Gates, a resident of the Regent Hotel, a single-room occupancy hotel across the street from the Balmoral, said on June 11. Mr. Gates was referring to members of Vancouver's Sahota family, owners of several SROs in the neighbourhood, including the Balmoral and the Regent. As Mr. Gates spoke, the block was barricaded at both ends by police cruisers for a street party that featured speeches, music, posters and food. Many attendees carried signs criticizing the city government or Mayor Gregor Robertson. Earlier this month, the city found the Balmoral Hotel was unsafe and gave tenants a deadline of June 12 to leave the building. Since then, housing providers have scrambled to find new homes for about 140 Balmoral tenants, many of whom are on social or disability assistance and some who have lived in the building for decades. In an update on June 11, the city said it had found housing for all registered tenants for the Balmoral, amounting to more than 140 units. Those units are in both privately owned and non-profit buildings, deputy city manager Paul Mochrie said in a statement, adding that, "there have also been extraordinary efforts to expedite the turnaround of recently vacated units and make them available for tenants being evacuated from the Balmoral." While that came as a relief to tenants and advocates, questions remained about what would happen to the Balmoral, which is more than a century old and among a shrinking pool of SROs that provide what the city calls "housing of last resort:" the last stop before homelessness. "Why has this happened -- that's the burning question -- why has this happened and how do we go forward?" community organizer Wendy Pedersen said from a stage set up mid-block. "We don't disagree that this building should be shut down but we want to know -- why has it taken the city so long [to act] . . . There are dozens of hotels like this in the city that are on the edge of being condemned," Ms. Pedersen said. She and other advocates say the city could -- and should -- do more to ensure safety and upkeep in privately owned SROs, including conducting necessary repairs and then billing the owner. City bylaws would allow for that approach but, so far, the city has been reluctant to pursue it, possibly because of legal concerns, advocates say. "Every city in the world has problem landlords," Judy Graves, who retired as the city's homeless advocate in 2013, said at the demonstration. "And you just have to come up with the legislation and the enforcement to deal with it," she added. The city has said it prefers to use the courts and other enforcement strategies to hold owners accountable. The Sahotas have not responded to messages seeking comment about the situation at the Balmoral or its other properties. The mayor has also said the city planned to take the Sahota family to court for more than 150 bylaw infractions. With help from community organizers, tenants of the Balmoral and the Regent last year launched proposed class-action suits against the Sahotas. The City of Vancouver is also a defendant in the proposed class actions. The Sahotas have challenged those actions on jurisdictional grounds, saying the Residential Tenancy Branch is the proper venue for landlord-tenant disputes. The B.C. Court of Appeal heard arguments on that issue on June 8. A decision is pending. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls --------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that the availability of autodialing technology is not lost on the banking industry, competitive as it is. And while disgruntled plaintiffs line up over Comenity Bank TCPA violations, as an example, Comenity is not the only bank accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). To that end, Capital One NA is facing a proposed class action in the Sunshine state after a Florida man became fed up with auto- dialed calls -- often referred to as robocalls -- to his cellphone. Plaintiff Darrell Pickett asserts that he's never been a customer of Capital One, and that the calls appear to be directed to someone other than him. Court records show that Mr. Pickett has attempted to explain this fact on numerous occasions to Capital One, but to no avail. The Capital One robocalls keep coming, chewing up his mobile phone minutes and driving him to distraction. The proposed class action was filed on February 14 of this year -- Valentine's Day. While Pickett did not reveal his motivation for choosing that particular day to file -- if, indeed it was a coincidence -- there remains little doubt that the proposed Capital One TCPA violation class action is decidedly not a valentine to Capital One. According to court documents the Capital One telemarketing violations began after he obtained a new cell phone number. Pickett, who hails from Orlando, alleges that he received "a slew" of calls from a number assigned to Capital One from at least April through July of last year -- including at least one voicemail asking for someone who was not the plaintiff, and with whom Mr. Pickett was never acquainted. Mr. Pickett asserts he contacted Capital One on at least one occasion, explained the situation with regard to the wrong number and asked for the calls to stop. According to his Capital One TCPA violation lawsuit, the calls kept coming. Mr. Pickett asserts in his Capital One telemarketing lawsuit that Capital One violates the TCPA "by using an automatic telephone dialing system to place nonemergency calls to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent -- in that it calls wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers that do not belong to its customers," his lawsuit says. Mr. Pickett alleges invasion of privacy, intrusion and private nuisance. Not only did the robocalls deplete his cellphone minutes -- which represented a cost to the plaintiff out of pocket -- but the telemarketing calls also tied up his phone line unnecessarily. He seeks to represent a class of individuals having been robocalled by Capital One NA without express or prior consent, during the last four years. The Capital One Telemarketing violation lawsuit is Darrell Pickett v. Capital One NA, Case No. 6:17-cv-00260, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] CARDCONNECT: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Solicitation Statement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CardConnect Corp., Jeffrey Shanahan, Richard Garman, Christopher Winship, Peter Burns, Toos N. Daruvala, Ronald L. Taylor, First Data Corporation, and Minglewood Merger Sub Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02677-MMB (E.D. Penn., June 13, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which CardConnect Corp. will be acquired by First Data Corporation for $15.00 per stockholders' share in cash. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading, says the complaint. Specifically, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) the selected merger and acquisition transactions observed by FT Partners and (ii) the premiums in such transactions. CardConnect Corp. is a provider of payment processing and technology solutions, helping more than 67,000 organizations -- from independent coffee shops to iconic global brands -- accept billions of dollars in card transactions each year. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com CENTRAL FEDERAL: Purcell Julie Investigates Potential Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated to representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of directors of Central Federal Corporation (NASDAQ: CFBK). If you are a shareholder of Central Federal Corporation and are interested in obtaining additional information regarding this investigation, free of charge, please visit us at: http://pjlfirm.com/central-federal-corporation/ You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000. One of our attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost or obligation. Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://pjlfirm.com-- is a law firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and other types of corporate misconduct. [GN] CENTURYLINK INC: Says Remaining Funds to be Paid Soon ----------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., the vast majority of the settlement funds were paid out to the claims administrator in March 2017, with the remainder to be paid out in the next few months. In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The court certified classes on the claims for vested benefits and age discrimination, but rejected class certification on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that were at issue in Fulghum. After extensive district court proceedings in Fulghum, and an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, defendants prevailed in 2015 on all age discrimination claims and on the majority of claims for vested benefits. The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining vested benefits claims, and in July 2016 ordered that any affected class members could appeal this ruling. No appeal was taken, and all claims for vested benefits thus have lapsed. On August 31, 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle on all remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. Since then, a settlement agreement has been finalized and, per its terms, the vast majority of the settlement funds were paid out to the claims administrator in March 2017, with the remainder to be paid out in the next few months. The amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements. CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of services to residential and business customers. CHIASMA INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to July 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc. et al., Case No. 16-cv-11082 (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper on June 7 entered an order resetting the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss an Amended Class Action Complaint. The hearing is now set for July 17, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. Chiasma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of our current and former officers were named as defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges our public statements regarding our Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for octreotide capsules and our ability to obtain FDA approval for the marketing and sale of octreotide capsules." "In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case. An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February 10, 2017 similarly challenging our statements regarding the Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and results, and our ability to obtain FDA approval for octreotide capsules, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended complaint adds as defendants current and former members of the Company's board of directors, as well as the investment banks that underwrote our initial public offering ("IPO") on July 15, 2015. "The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all purchasers of our stock in the Company's IPO. Plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of himself and members of a putative shareholder class, including interest and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating the action, and any other relief the court determines is appropriate. "The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 27, 2017. "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." Chiasma, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2001 under the laws of the State of Delaware. Chiasma, Inc. is headquartered in Massachusetts and has two wholly owned subsidiaries; Chiasma (Israel) Ltd., and Chiasma Securities Corp. CHINA AGRITECH: Lane Powell Attorney Discusses 9th Circuit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hawkes, Esq. -- hawkesp@lanepowell.com -- of Lane Powell PC, in an article for Lexology, wrote that overruling (or, at least, creatively re-characterizing) its own precedent, the Ninth Circuit held in Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., F.3d, 2017 WL 2261024 (9th Cir. May 24, 2017), that the pendency of an earlier uncertified class action tolls the statute of limitations not only for later- filed individual claims, but for subsequent class actions as well. The Ninth Circuit's decision opens the door to the possibility of serial, successive attempts to certify a class in securities (and other) cases, potentially exposing defendants to an almost never- ending series of class action lawsuits. Under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the pendency of a putative class action tolls the statute of limitations applicable to the individual claims of the putative class members. Thus, if the putative class action is timely brought, but class certification is later denied after the statute of limitations would have otherwise expired, putative class members would still be able to bring individual claims on their own behalf. The question in Resh was whether American Pipe tolling should apply to subsequent class actions as well. The facts of Resh are relatively straightforward. In February 2011, a market research company raised questions about the accuracy of China Agritech's financial reporting. Its stock price fell substantially. A few days later, a China Agritech shareholder filed a putative securities fraud class action complaint against the company and several of its managers and directors in the Central District of California. The court denied class certification, finding that, because plaintiffs had failed to establish the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, issues common to the proposed class did not predominate over individual issues. Five months after that denial, and one year and eight months after the initial adverse press report, another shareholder filed a second putative securities class action in the District of Delaware. The case was transferred to the same judge in the Central District of California, who again denied class certification, this time on grounds of typicality and adequacy of the named plaintiffs. Nine months later -- and more than three years after the initial adverse press report -- plaintiff Michael Resh filed yet another putative class action complaint alleging securities fraud against China Agritech and several individual defendants. A claim for securities fraud under the Exchange Act is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Thus, if American Pipe tolling applied, the putative class action would be timely -- only about 14 months had passed since the initial press report during which a putative class action was not pending. But if American Pipe tolling did not apply, the class action complaint was plainly time-barred. The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by discarding one of its prior precedents. In Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit had held that American Pipe tolling did not apply to a subsequent class action following a definitive determination of the inappropriateness of class certification. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Robbin as "a short opinion published 30 years ago" that had been "modified" in Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 2017 WL 2261024, at *6. In Catholic Social Services, the district court had certified a class, but had lost subject matter jurisdiction due to an intervening change in the law. See id. The Ninth Circuit held that American Pipe tolling applied to a subsequent class action in those circumstances. See id. But it also stated, "If class action certification had been denied in [an earlier case], and if plaintiffs in this action were seeking to relitigate the correctness of that denial, we would not permit plaintiffs to bring a class action." Id. (quoting Catholic Social Services, 232 F.3d at 1147). The Resh court found that interpreting that statement as forbidding the application of American Pipe tolling to subsequent class actions when class certification had previously been denied would be a "misreading" of Catholic Social Services. Id. at *6-*7. The court explained that it was not talking about American Pipe tolling at all. What it was actually talking about was issue preclusion -- all it meant was that, if the same plaintiffs sought to bring a subsequent class action after certification had previously been denied, issue preclusion would bar them from doing so. Id. at *7. That is, to say the least, an odd reading of Catholic Social Services. Other than the reference to "relitigat[ion]," nothing in Catholic Social Services' analysis suggests that the court was thinking of issue preclusion. In particular, nothing in the quoted sentence indicates that, to be barred from "relitigat[ing]" class certification, the plaintiffs in the subsequent class action had to be the same plaintiffs who unsuccessfully litigated the first class action -- a critical requirement for issue preclusion. In fact, the court actually cited Robbin in support of its statement, which was plainly made in the context of a discussion of the applicability of American Pipe tolling to subsequent class actions. See Catholic Social Services, 232 F.3d at 1145-49. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit expressly dealt with issue preclusion on a different issue in a separate portion of its opinion. Id. at 1151-53. In any event, having reinterpreted Catholic Social Services as applying American Pipe tolling to subsequent class actions -- regardless of the reason for the dismissal of the earlier class action -- the Ninth Circuit went on to find support for its position in three recent Supreme Court precedents: In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), the Supreme Court held that Rule 23 empowers a federal court to certify a class in any type of case, not only those "made eligible for class treatment by some other" Id. at 399 (emphasis in original). The Ninth Circuit concluded that to deny American Pipe tolling to subsequent class actions would essentially import "certification criteria" into Rule 23 from "some other law," which Shady Grove forbids. 2017 WL 2261024, at *7. In Smith v. Beyer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), the Supreme Court held that, after denying class certification, a federal court could not enjoin a state court from certifying a class under the "relitigation exception" to the Anti-Injunction Act because the state court action had different named plaintiffs who were not subject to claim or issue preclusion. The Court acknowledged the risk of "serial relitigation of class certification," but found that risk was mitigated by principles of stare decisis and comity, as well as the possibility of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (for state court actions) or MDL consolidation (for other federal actions). Id. at 316-18. The Ninth Circuit found that those considerations similarly ameliorated the unfairness of serial class certification litigation due to American Pipe 2017 WL 2261024, at *9. Finally, in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 126 S.Ct. 1036 (2016), the Supreme Court noted that "use of the class device cannot 'abridge . . . any substantive right.'" Id. at 1046 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2072(b)). While acknowledging that Tyson Foods did not directly control, given that "statutes of limitation occupy a no-man's land between substance and procedure," the Ninth Circuit found that it "nonetheless reinforces our conclusion that the statute of limitations does not bar a class action brought by plaintiffs whose individual actions are not barred." 2017 WL 2261024, at *8. Despite the court's insistence to the contrary, Resh represents a sharp break from prior law in the Ninth Circuit. Given that the court radically reinterpreted the en banc decision in Catholic Social Services, it will be interesting to see whether the Ninth Circuit elects to reconsider the Resh decision en banc. In the meantime, Resh increases the pressure on defendants in putative class actions pending in the Ninth Circuit to settle, lest they be saddled with the costs of serially re-litigating class certification even after prevailing. The Resh court's suggestion that plaintiffs' counsel, whose fees are usually contingent on the outcome of the case, "at some point will be unwilling to assume the financial risk in bringing successive suits," id. at *9, is sure to be cold comfort to class action defendants, for whom the cost of litigation is frequently the driving factor in deciding to settle a case. Some relief may be forthcoming soon from the Supreme Court, however. The Court is currently considering whether American Pipe tolling applies to statutes of repose, in addition to statutes of limitations. See California Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 811 (2017) (granting writ of certiorari). If the Supreme Court affirms that American Pipe tolling does not apply to statutes of repose, that would at least put a hard backstop on serial re-litigation of class certification. And given that there is a clear circuit split on whether American Pipe tolling applies to subsequent class actions, see, e.g., Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (1987), the Supreme Court may eventually take up that issue as well. [GN] CIGNA CORPORATION: Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company and the Cigna Pension Plan are defendants in a class action lawsuit that has yet to be resolved. When the parties agree on a final plan amendment, the pension benefit obligation will be updated to reflect additional benefits resulting from this litigation. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre- conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the plaintiffs filed various objections. On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits. The Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at March 31, 2017 based on calculations consistent with the Company's interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court. However, certain aspects of the ruling will need further clarification from the Court before final plan benefits can be determined. As a result, the timing of the resolution of this matter remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court's order and the benefits will begin to be paid. Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a global health services organization. CIGNA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Franco" Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company will continue to vigorously defend its position in the case captioned as, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a global health services organization. COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Warren, et al. Case Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank, remains pending. On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No. 1416-CV19197). In the case, the customer alleges violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been similarly affected. The case has been stayed pending the final outcome of a similar case in which a ruling has been made in favor of the bank defendant. The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any appeals in the similar case have run their course. The Company believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be determined with certainty at this time. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in the case, In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that we made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding our financial results, business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief." "Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. On December 17, 2015, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case was granted and the case dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were permitted to re-file their claim, which they did on February 5, 2016. "Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016, which was denied by the court on September 30, 2016. Discovery has commenced in this action and is ongoing. "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation will have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of March 31, 2017, we have not recorded an accrual for this matter as we have concluded that the probability of a loss is remote." Commvault is a provider of data and information management software applications and related services. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has been voluntarily dismissed. The Company said, "On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of FairPoint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against us, FairPoint and its directors. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the disclosures in our Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on January 26, 2017, in connection with the Merger Agreement, are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff sought to enjoin us from consummating the merger with FairPoint on the agreed-upon terms or, alternatively, to rescind the merger in the event that we consummate the merger, in addition to damages and attorney fees and costs." "On March 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin FairPoint's special meeting of stockholders to approve the proposed Merger. On March 17, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to his individual claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the putative class. No payment, promise of payment, or other consideration has been offered or made to the plaintiff or his attorneys." Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is an integrated communications services company that operates as both an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC") dependent upon the territory served. It provides an array of services in consumer, commercial and carrier channels in 11 states, including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband Internet access, video services, Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP"), custom calling features, private line services, carrier grade access services, network capacity services over the Company's regional fiber optic networks, data center and managed services, directory publishing, equipment sales, and cloud services. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Delaware Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has been dismissed. On March 3, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Vento v. Currey, et al. (Case No. 2017-0157) against the members of the Company's board of directors. The lawsuit related to our Merger Agreement with FairPoint. Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with soliciting approval of the Company's stockholders of the issuance of the Company's common stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the "Stockholder Vote") because Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by the Company on February 24, 2017 failed to disclose allegedly material information relating to the retention, compensation and financial incentives of a financial advisor to the Company in connection with the proposed Merger. The plaintiff sought, among other relief, to enjoin the Stockholder Vote. On March 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Stockholder Vote until such time as certain information concerning the financial interests of the Company's financial advisor in the proposed Merger were fully disclosed. On March 22, 2017, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued a letter decision stating that it would preliminarily enjoin the Stockholder Vote (the "Injunction") until five days after such time as the Company had supplemented its disclosures to include a clear and direct explanation of the amount of financing- related fees that the Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, or any of its affiliates stands to receive in connection with the Merger if the Merger is consummated. In response to the Injunction, in order to provide a clear and direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or any of its affiliates stands to receive in connection with the Merger, and to provide additional information to its stockholders, the Company supplemented the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the Merger Agreement as described in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 22, 2017 at a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders, which was scheduled to held on March 28, 2017, or the Merger. Subsequently on March 22, 2017, the Injunction was vacated, and the lawsuit was dismissed in a timely manner that did not cause any delay of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders, which was held on March 28, 2017, as scheduled. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is an integrated communications services company that operates as both an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC") dependent upon the territory served. It provides an array of services in consumer, commercial and carrier channels in 11 states, including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband Internet access, video services, Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP"), custom calling features, private line services, carrier grade access services, network capacity services over the Company's regional fiber optic networks, data center and managed services, directory publishing, equipment sales, and cloud services. CU BANCORP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Proposed PacWest Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CU Bancorp, Roberto E. Barragan, Charles R. Beauregard, Kenneth J. Cosgrove, David C. Holman, K. Brian Horton, Eric S. Kentor, Jeffrey Leitzinger, David I. Rainer, Roy A. Salter, Daniel F. Selleck, Charles H. Sweetman, Kaveh Varjavand, Eric S. Kentor, and Pacwest Bancorp, Case No. 2:17-cv-04353 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of CU Bancorp, to enjoin the proposed transaction announced on April 5, 2017, pursuant to which CU Bancorp will be acquired by PacWest Bancorp for $12.00 per share in cash and 0.5308 of a share of PacWest common stock. According to the complaint, CU Bancorp filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that CU Bancorp stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the estimated excess cash flows that CU Bancorp could generate from 2017 to 2021; (ii) the implied terminal value of CU Bancorp; (iii) the assumed long-term earnings and asset growth rates of CU Bancorp; and (iv) the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.0% to 13.0%. 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 further notes that the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Neustar'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. CU Bancorp is the holding company for California United Bank, a leading edge community-based commercial bank, focusing on products and services to customers located throughout the metropolitan Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, and San Bernardino County markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - 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 DEL TACO: Class Certification Motion Underway in Employee Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2017, that the parties in a class action lawsuit by a former Del Taco employee are preparing their motions for and opposition to class certification. In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class certification. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of March 28, 2017. Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired and American classic dishes. DEL TACO: Discovery Pending in Former Del Taco Employee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2017, that discovery is in process in a class action lawsuit by a former Del Taco employee. In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of March 28, 2017. Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired and American classic dishes. DELTA NATURAL: Defends 2 Class Suits over PNG Merger ---------------------------------------------------- Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. continues to defend two class suits related to merger, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On February 20, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") with PNG Companies, LLC ("PNG"). On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit related to the Merger was filed, Halberstam v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in state circuit court in Clark County, Kentucky ("Halberstam Complaint"). On April 28, 2017, a lawsuit related to the Merger was filed, Parshall v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ("Parshall Complaint"). The Halberstam Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in relation to the Merger, including breaching its fiduciary duty of disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC. The Parshall Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's Board of Directors violated certain laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with the filing of a preliminary proxy statement containing materially false and misleading statements. Both complaints seek, among other things, certification as a class action on behalf of all Company shareholders similarly situated and to enjoin the consummation of the Merger until the breaches are cured. Although the complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought, Delta is insured for such litigation, subject to a $1 million deductible. "We intend to vigorously defend the complaints and believe they are without merit," the Company said. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. distributes or transports natural gas to approximately 36,000 customers. DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dom's Lawnmaker, Inc., and Domtnick D'alonzo, Case No. cv17-3519 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Dom's Lawnmaker, Inc. is in the business of providing a variety of lawn and garden services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Litigation Deal Approved --------------------------------------------------------- Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has approved the settlement of the case, In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation, and entered a Final Order and Judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the "defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On September 7, 2016, the parties signed the Stipulation of Settlement, which provides for a payment of $4.5 million by the defendants, of which the Company is responsible for $4.1 million, and results in the dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants in connection with the securities class action, upon final court approval. The settlement will be paid for by the Company's insurance carriers. On February 6, 2017, the Court approved the settlement and entered a Final Order and Judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and adaptive immune response through toll-like receptor ("TLR") stimulation. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: "Soontjens" and "Shumake" Suits Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated "Soontjens" and "Shumake" complaints remains pending. On November 18, 2016, two substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its executive officers, in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation et. al., ("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation et al., ("Shumake"). The Soontjens complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and November 11, 2016, the Company and certain of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to HEPLISAV-B. The Shumake complaint alleges violations of the same statutes related to the same subject, but between January 7, 2016 and November 11, 2016. The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 17, 2017, these two actions and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On January 31, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 17, 2017. Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 1, 2017. Following the completion of briefing by the parties, the court will conduct a hearing on the motion and render a decision. Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and adaptive immune response through toll-like receptor ("TLR") stimulation. DYNEGY INC: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Gas Index Pricing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action in the Gas Index Pricing Litigation. The Company said, "We, through our subsidiaries, and other energy companies are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications from 2000-2002. The cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices in three states (Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin) during the relevant time period. The cases are consolidated in a multi-district litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court for Nevada." "On March 30, 2017, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, which may be subject to an interlocutory appeal requested by the plaintiffs on April 14, 2017. At this time we cannot reasonably estimate a potential loss." Dynegy sells electric energy, capacity and ancillary services primarily on a wholesale basis from our power generation facilities. EHEALTH INC: California Suits in Preliminary Stage -------------------------------------------------- eHealth, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that class action lawsuits in California are in the preliminary stage. The Company said, "On January 26, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint alleges that we negligently failed to take necessary precautions required to protect from unauthorized disclosure personally identifiable information contained on 2016 Form W-2s for current and former employees. The complaint purports to allege causes of action against us for negligence, violation of Section 17200 et seq. of the California Business & Professions Code, declaratory relief and breach of implied contract. The complaint seeks actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, costs, including experts' fees and attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as prescribed by law and equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief as appropriate." "In April 2017, an additional purported class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, relating to the same circumstances. The second complaint purports to allege causes of action against us for negligence, violation of California Customer Records Act (California Civil Code Section 1798.80 et seq.), violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (California Civil Code Section 56 et seq.), invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, breach of confidentiality and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.). "The second complaint seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs, including experts' fees and attorneys' fees and costs of prosecuting the action, and pre-judgment and post- judgment interest as prescribed by law. Because the cases are at a preliminary stage, we cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages." eHealth, Inc. is a private health insurance exchange for individuals, families and small businesses in the United States. Through its website addresses (www.eHealth.com, www.eHealthInsurance.com, www.eHealthMedicare.com, www.Medicare.com and www.PlanPrescriber.com), consumers can get quotes from leading health insurance carriers, compare plans side- by-side, and apply for and purchase Medicare-related, individual and family, small business and ancillary health insurance plans. The Company actively markets the availability of Medicare-related insurance plans and offer Medicare plan comparison tools and educational materials for Medicare-related insurance plans, including Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement and Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. EL POLLO: Parties in "Olvera" Suit Engaged in Settlement Talks -------------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2017, that the parties in the case, Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al., are once again engaged in settlement discussion with the putative lead plaintiff. On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which the court recently refused to approve on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class members. The parties are now once again engaged in settlement discussion with the putative lead plaintiff proposing to limit the class to those hourly employees who worked as cooks at the time a corporate-owned restaurant closed. "Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers, and we fully expect to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future," the Company said. The Company's activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating segment. At March 29, 2017, the Company operated 204 and franchised 263 El Pollo Loco restaurants. EL POLLO: Huston et al. Challenge Motion to Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Daniel Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal.), pending before Judge David O Carter, Movants Ron Huston, Robert W. Kegley, Sr., Peter Kim, Dr. Richard Levy, and Samuel Tanner filed on June 16 a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the consolidated third amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2017, that Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv- 01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv- 01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). The Company said, "Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations." In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims asserted and intend to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Company's activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating segment. At March 29, 2017, the Company operated 204 and franchised 263 El Pollo Loco restaurants. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: "Sponn" Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------------- Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit by William Sponn filed an opposition brief to Defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or Sponn, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its senior officers and directors, collectively, the Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements about the government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year exclusive procurement contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would be renewed and omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified damages, including legal costs. On October 25, 2016 the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers' Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On December 27, 2016 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that cites the same class period, names the same defendants and makes similar allegations to the original complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017. The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against those claims. As of the date of this filing, the range of potential loss cannot be determined or estimated. Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty products for civilian and military populations that address accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health threats. Our company is focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing medical countermeasures, or MCM, that address public health threats, or PHTs. FACEBOOK INC: Settles Matt Campbell's Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Jan Cottingham , writing for Arkansas Business, reports that a lawsuit filed by Little Rock lawyer Matt Campbell, who blogs at Blue Hog Report, against Facebook over alleged privacy violations has been settled. A lawsuit filed by Little Rock lawyer Matt Campbell against Facebook over alleged privacy violations has been settled. Mr. Campbell, author of the Blue Hog Report blog, was the lead named plaintiff in the class-action suit filed in 2013 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit claims that Facebook violated users' privacy by reading their private messages without their consent. Facebook said it had ended the practice of sharing information in private messages to target advertising to Facebook users. The settlement brings no monetary awards, covering only claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. As part of the settlement Campbell and Michael Hurley, the second named plaintiff, will receive $5,000 as class representatives. Carney Bates & Pulliam represented Campbell and Hurley. Also representing the plaintiffs were Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP of San Francisco. Facebook has agreed not to take a position on the plaintiffs' attorneys' application for fees and costs of almost $3.9 million. [GN] FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing in "Smilovits" Case Appeal Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that merits briefing on the appeal in the "Smilovits" class action lawsuit is ongoing. The Company said, "On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action." On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015. On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension Schemes' motion. Merits briefing on the appeal is ongoing. The Arizona District Court has entered a stay of the proceedings in district court until the appeal is decided. "Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. First Solar is a global provider of comprehensive PV solar energy solutions. FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial Scheduled in Sleep Tracking Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that trial is currently scheduled for July 10, 2017, in the class action lawsuit over sleep tracking lawsuit. On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; a ruling has not yet issued. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment; the hearing is scheduled for May 25, 2017. Trial is currently scheduled for July 10, 2017. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Fitbit generates substantially all of its revenue from sales of wearable devices. FITBIT INC: Arbitration Bid in Heart Rate Tracking Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is awaiting a ruling on its motion to compel arbitration in the heart rate tracking class action lawsuit. On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not consistently and accurately record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as violations of various states' false advertising and unfair competition statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, and is currently awaiting a ruling from the courts. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Fitbit generates substantially all of its revenue from sales of wearable devices. FITBIT INC: Securities Litigation Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend the securities litigation in California. On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). On May 10, 2016, the Court appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, ("the Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company's products between October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers, and directors, the underwriters of the IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiff alleges that the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements about the Company's products. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO and/or the Secondary Offering. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The cases have now been consolidated in the County of San Francisco. On April 7, 2017, the court granted a motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim based on the Secondary Offering and stayed the cases. On November 11, 2016, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty based on the same alleged set of facts in the federal and state securities class action litigation. On February 3, 2017, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in the District of Delaware on the same allegations. Both courts have ordered a stay in the cases. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in these actions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Fitbit generates substantially all of its revenue from sales of wearable devices. HUGOTON ROYALTY: Pretrial Discovery Underway in Royalty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hugoton Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that pretrial discovery continues in a royalty class action lawsuit. In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case was certified as a class action in April 2012; however, on appeal in June 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. Pretrial discovery continues. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy has strong defenses to the Chieftain lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation. As these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the Trust should bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment, including any future royalty adjustments that would reduce net proceeds. The trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts and circumstances of such settlement or judgment. In light of a 2014 arbitration decision in which a three panel tribunal decided that the settlement in Fankhouser v. XTO Energy, Inc., including a new royalty calculation for future royalty payments, could not be charged to the Trust, to the extent that the claims in Chieftain are similar to those in Fankhouser the trustee would likely object to such claimed reductions. Should there be a disagreement as to whether the Trust should bear its share of a settlement or judgment the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association under the terms of the Indenture creating the Trust. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the Trust's financial position or liquidity though it could be material to the Trust's annual distributable income. Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of the case, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues exceed the costs for those net profit interests. ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Employee Class Action Pending in W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- ICTS International N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is defending against an employee class action lawsuit in Washington. As the increase in minimum wage was not paid yet to the employees, an employee of the Company filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington. The employee alleges the Company failed to pay the proper SeaTac minimum wage. Plaintiffs served written discovery to the individual defendants. Additional two lawsuits were filed against the Company in the Circuit Court for King County, State of Washington, on the same subject. ICTS International N.V. was registered at the Department of Justice in Amstelveen, Netherlands on October 9, 1992. ICTS and subsidiaries operate in three reportable segments: (a)corporate (b) aviation security and other aviation services and (c) technology. The corporate segment does not generate revenue and contains primarily non-operational expenses. The airport security and other aviation services business provide security and other services to airlines and airport authorities, predominantly in Europe and the United States. The technology segment is predominantly involved in the development and sale of identity security software to financial and other institutions, in Europe and the United States. ILG INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Mass Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------- ILG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss a mass action remains pending. The Company said, "On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities who own or owned 107 fractional interests of a total of 372 interests created in the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club located within The St. Regis, New York (the "Club") filed suit against ILG, certain of our subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. ("Marriott") and certain of its subsidiaries including Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC ("Starwood"). The case is filed as a mass action in federal court in the Southern District of New York, not as a class action." "In response to our request to file a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2017. Plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment of the plan to include additional units, and the rental of unsold fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged acts by us and the other defendants breached the relevant agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional interests. The relief sought includes, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2017. We dispute the material allegations in the amended 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." ILG, Inc. is a provider of professionally delivered vacation experiences and the exclusive global licensee for the Hyatt(R), Sheraton(R) and Westin(R) brands in vacation ownership. IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Taps Wilmer Cutler as Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- Immunocellular Therapeutics, Ltd. has engaged lawyers from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP as its counsel in a securities class action lawsuit. The firm's engagement will be led by: Elizabeth Harper Skey, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 Ms. Skey on June 19 filed a Notice of Appearance in the case on behalf of Defendants David Fractor, Andrew Gengos, ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd., and John Y. Yu. Also on June 19, the Defendants filed a proposed Stipulation to extend their time to answer the Complaint. They presently have until July 3 to file their answer. Immunocellular Therapeutics, Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al (Case No. 2:17-cv- 03250) against ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (the "Company"), certain of its current and former officers and directors and others. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, related to allegedly materially false or misleading statements made between May 1, 2012 and December 11, 2013. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose that it purportedly paid for articles to be published about ICT-107. The plaintiff seeks an award of unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. The Company does not intend to file further Current Reports on Form 8-K describing the additional lawsuits, or provide updates, except as required by law. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Briefing in Kleen Products Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the Kleen Products litigation, briefing of the parties' dispositive motions and expert challenges is underway. In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015, the District Court certified a class of direct purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the defendants' petition to appeal, and in August 2016, affirmed the District Court's decision on all counts. In April 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for discretionary review (petition for writ of certiorari) of the class certification decision. The Kleen Products litigation continues to progress, and briefing of the parties' dispositive motions and expert challenges is well underway and expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2017. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture's Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that no class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action. In June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal court in Wisconsin. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action. INVESTORS BANCORP: Faces "Fordell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanmarie Fordell and Jennifer Rogers, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Investors Bancorp, Inc., d/b/a Investors Bank, Case No. 511755/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Assistant Branch Managers' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Investors Bancorp, Inc. is a New Jersey chartered savings bank. It is the largest bank headquartered in the state of New Jersey, with current assets of approximately $23.17 billion and over 150 branches in New York and New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (561) 447-2580 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com JUICE GENERATION: Faces "Khadka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Bhimsen Khadka, Gelu Sherpa, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Juice Generation Inc., Cooler Cleans 8 LLC, and Eric S. Helms, Case No. 708250/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants specialize in fresh juice, smoothies and raw food business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Durga P. Bhurtel, Esq. BHIMSEN KHADKA, GELU SHERPA 37-49 751h Street, 2nd Floor Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (718) 509-6181 Facsimile: (917) 396-4622 E-mail: deb@attorneybhurtel.com LANNETT COMPANY: Case Management Orders Expected in Summer 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, it is expected that case management orders will not be issued until sometime in the Summer of 2017. The Company and certain competitors have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2016 and 2017 alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin, doxycycline, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. These cases are part of a larger group of more than 100 lawsuits generally alleging that approximately 50 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors conspired to fix prices for at least 18 different generic drugs in violation of the federal Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws, and various state consumer protection statutes. The United States also has been granted leave to intervene in the cases. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the cases alleging price-fixing for generic drugs be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. An initial conference with the court was held on May 4, 2017, although it is expected that case management orders will not be issued until sometime in the Summer of 2017. The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Company disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture, package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release (tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic areas. LANNETT COMPANY: Still Defends Amended Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against an amended complaint in a class action lawsuit. In November 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company in its securities filings made false and misleading statements in connection with its drug pricing methodologies and internal controls with respect to drug pricing methodologies causing damage to the purported class. An amended complaint will be filed in May 2017, and at this time, the Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time. Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture, package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release (tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic areas. LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit by Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. against Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner, remains pending. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2017. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Data Privacy Litigation Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the data privacy litigation against the Company has been dismissed. The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC") Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer backup tapes from a vehicle of a company employee. In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice. On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern District Court of California, related to the same theft of computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and other claims. On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the Plaintiff against the Company. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this dismissal on November 17, 2015, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 31, 2017, the parties agreed to a settlement and release of all outstanding claims and the case was dismissed with prejudice on April 5, 2017. Leidos Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose direct 100%-owned subsidiaries and principal operating companies are Leidos, Inc. and Leidos Innovations Corporation. Leidos is a global science and technology company that provides technology and engineering services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the U.S. Intelligence Community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), U.S. Government civil agencies and state and local government agencies. Leidos' international customers include foreign governments and their agencies, primarily located in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal --------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court has been granted. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two former chief executive officers, a former group president and the former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime") and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007, through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. In particular, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue omissions claims against the Company with respect to the annual report the Company filed on Form 10-K on March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of all other claims, including all the claims against the individual defendants, and the case was remanded to the District Court. On September 23, 2016, the District Court issued an order clarifying that the applicable class period relating to the March 2011 Form 10-K ends on June 2, 2011, not September 1, 2011, as plaintiffs argued. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. Any potential loss relating to this matter is not reasonably estimable due to unresolved questions of fact and law. However, the Company does not expect any ultimate liability to have a material effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity or capital resources. Leidos Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose direct 100%-owned subsidiaries and principal operating companies are Leidos, Inc. and Leidos Innovations Corporation. Leidos is a global science and technology company that provides technology and engineering services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the U.S. Intelligence Community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), U.S. Government civil agencies and state and local government agencies. Leidos' international customers include foreign governments and their agencies, primarily located in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion for Class Certification Pending -------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, In re LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litigation, is currently set for June 2017. During the year ended December 31, 2016, several putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in California Superior Court, naming as defendants the Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a single action (Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. The Company filed a demurrer requesting the Court dismiss certain of the claims alleged in the amended complaint, which was granted in part in the fourth quarter of 2016. The plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint which the Company responded to with a new demurrer seeking to dismiss certain claims. The Court granted in part and denied in part this new demurrer thus setting the operative complaint. In early April 2017 the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification which the Company will oppose; a hearing on this issue is currently set for June 2017. Discovery is continuing. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. LendingClub is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and investors. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suits Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in two related putative securities class actions are awaiting the Court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions (entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV- 2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV- 2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors. In mid-August 2016, the two actions were consolidated into a single action. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the fourth quarter of 2016. The Court held a hearing on this motion in the first quarter of 2017 and a ruling is expected imminently. Discovery will commence if the Company does not succeed in dismissing every claim in the complaint. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. LendingClub is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and investors. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Federal Consumer Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------- A federal consumer class action remains pending, LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York, alleging that persons received loans, through the Company's platform, that exceeded states' usury limits in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO statute. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis, which was granted in February 2017. The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to defend this matter vigorously. LendingClub is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and investors. LIFE ALERT: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class counsel on June 11 disclosed that, following final approval of a $1.9 million class action settlement brought by California class members against Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., the settlement administrator has begun mailing settlement payments to qualified class members. The suit was filed on September 9, 2014, and alleged that Life Alert -- a maker of emergency-response devices for senior citizens -- misclassified its workers as independent contractors, causing unlawful pay shortages. The court granted final approval of the settlement on March 2, 2017. The plaintiffs and settlement class are represented by class counsel James (JJ) Johnston and Kelly Y. Chen. The case is Barragan v. Life Alert Emergency Response Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC556127. [GN] LOBSTERS IN MOCEAN: "Matthew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Matthew (f/k/a Simon Sahmaoui), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Lobsters In Mocean, Inc. d/b/a The Lazy Lobster of Longboat and Robert J. Fracalossy, Case No. 8:17- cv-01371-JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant located at 5350 Gulf of Mexico Drive, Longboat Key, Florida 34228 in Sarasota County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com M&T BANK: Trial in Securities Litigation to Begin June 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------- M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled to begin on June 18, 2018, in the case, In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR). Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to be class representatives, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss. The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. Fact discovery commenced. On April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact discovery in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v. Wilmington Trust Corp., et al. On September 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the stay of discovery in this matter to allow for additional, limited discovery. On December 19, 2016, the Court issued an order lifting the existing stay in its entirety. MAINTEX INC: "Tamayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Mario Tamayo and Ricardo Vasquez, individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maintex, Inc., Jade Professional Group, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC665105 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures chemicals and janitorial supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com skierig@haineslawgroup.com MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Ise" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Ise, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mazor Robotics Ltd., Ori Hadomi, Eliyahu Zehavi and Sharon Levita, Case No. 1:17-cv-04422 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) that the Company was engaged in conduct that subjected it to ISA investigation; (ii) that, as such the Company was exposed to potential liability; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Mazor's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Mazor Robotics Ltd. is a medical device company that develops and markets innovative surgical guidance systems and complementary products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com MENARD INC: Faces "Santti" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Carrie Santti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Menard, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01243 (N.D. Ohio, June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Menard, Inc. operates a chain of home improvement stores in the Midwestern United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Michaela Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com MESQUITE SERVICES: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mesquite Services, LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00117 (W.D. Tex., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mesquite Services, LLC owns and operates a trucking company located at 7021 Kewanee, Suite 10101, Lubbock Texas 79424. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Transfer Case Venue Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer a class action lawsuit. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation. Momenta Pharmaceuticals is a biotechnology company focused on developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for autoimmune diseases. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Suit over 2017 Offering Underway --------------------------------------------------------- MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a securities litigation related to the Company's 2017 offering. On April 15, 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, for the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. In May 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware. In September 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter. MoneyGram offers products and services under its two reporting segments: Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. The Global Funds Transfer segment provides global money transfer services and bill payment services to consumers. The Financial Paper Products segment provides official check outsourcing services and money orders through financial institutions and agent locations. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Merger Suits in Del. & Texas Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the Delaware and Texas merger-related litigation filed notices of voluntary dismissal of those actions. The Company said, "On March 13, 2017 and March 17, 2017, respectively, putative securities class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against MoneyGram and its directors. One of the lawsuits also named as defendants certain of our executive officers, Alipay and other parties to the Merger." "The plaintiffs, our stockholders, challenged the Merger and the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits alleged violations of various securities laws and regulations due to allegedly material and misleading omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger. "Additionally, the lawsuits alleged that the Merger Agreement is unfair to our stockholders, resulted from an inadequate process, and contains terms that will supposedly deter third parties from making alternative offers. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Merger and to recover damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. "On April 26, 2017 and April 28, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Delaware and Texas suits, respectively, filed notices of voluntary dismissal of those actions." MoneyGram offers products and services under its two reporting segments: Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. The Global Funds Transfer segment provides global money transfer services and bill payment services to consumers. The Financial Paper Products segment provides official check outsourcing services and money orders through financial institutions and agent locations. OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces "Huseman" Suit Over False Company Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Huseman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ronald M. Faris, and Michael R. Bourque, Jr., Case No. 9:17-cv-80729-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2013), alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, says the complainy, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company loaded inaccurate information into its REALServicing proprietary system; (2) that the REALServicing system generated errors due to deficient programming; (3) that the Company wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least 1,000 people, and wrongfully held foreclosure sales; (4) that the Company failed to appropriately credit payments made by numerous borrowers; (5) that the Company failed to send borrowers accurate periodic statements detailing the amount due, how payments were applied, total payments received, and other information, and failed to correct billing and payment errors; (6) that the Company botched basic tasks in managing escrow accounts; (7) that the Company failed to make timely insurance payments for home insurance premiums, causing the lapse of homeowners' insurance coverage for more than 10,000 borrowers; (8) that the Company failed to cancel borrowers' private mortgage insurance in a timely manner, causing consumers to overpay; (9) that the Company enrolled some consumers in add-on products through deceptive solicitations and without their consent; (10) that the Company mishandled accounts for successors-in-interest, or heirs, to a deceased borrower; (11) that the Company routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate complaints, or make necessary corrections; (12) that the Company failed to include complete and accurate borrower information when it sold its rights to service thousands of loans to new mortgage servicers; (13) that, as such, the Company engaged in systematic misconduct in violation of applicable consumer and financial laws; and (14) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Ocwen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services company that services and originates loans. [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 OMEGA PROTEIN: Diehl Action Still Pending, Malone Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ Omega Protein Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Malone class action lawsuit has been dismissed while the Diehl class action remains pending. On March 2, 2017 and April 5, 2017, two class action lawsuits captioned Malone v. Omega Protein Corporation and Diehl v. Omega Protein Corporation, respectively, were filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Malone action was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, by the plaintiff on March 29, 2017. The Diehl action purports to assert claims against the Company and two of its officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The plaintiff in Diehl seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period from June 4, 2013 through March 1, 2017. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and two of its officers regarding the Company's finances and business prospects, which allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price paid for the Company's securities during the class period. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon, attorneys' fees and costs. OMEGA PROTEIN: "Ahern" Lawsuit Goes to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as, Paul Ahern v. Omega Protein Corporation et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01720 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), was transferred to the Southern District of New York, 1:17-cv-03778, on May 19. The California case has been terminated. Omega Protein Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on March 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit captioned Ahern v. Omega Protein Corporation was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. This suit asserts claims against the Company and two of its officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities during the period from August 3, 2016 through March 1, 2017. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and two of its officers regarding the Company's business, operational and financial results, which allegedly operated to inflate artificially the market price of the Company's securities during the class period. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon, attorneys' fees and costs. On May 1, 2017, the Company filed a motion to transfer this lawsuit from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Omega Protein Corporation (the "Company") is a nutritional products company that develops, produces and delivers products throughout the world to improve the nutritional integrity of foods, dietary supplements and animal feeds. The Company operates through two industry segments: animal nutrition and human nutrition. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Paddock" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the action, Paddock v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., without prejudice. On January 17, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Paddock v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers, and Fortress. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and the named officers for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information regarding the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, including projected net income, following the OneMain Acquisition. The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between March 3, 2015 and November 7, 2016. The complaint sought an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On February 17, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. Defendants are represented by: Meredith Thornburgh White, Esq. Michael H. Gottschlich, Esq. Barnes & Thornburg LLP 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535 Tel: 317-231-7834 Fax: 317-231-7433 E-mail: Meredith.White@btlaw.com Michael.Gottschlich@btlaw.com - and - Abena Mainoo, Esq. Meredith E. Kotler, Esq. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Tel: 212 225 2130 E-mail: amainoo@cgsh.com mkotler@cgsh.com OMH is a financial services holding company. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Galestan" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Company continues to defend against the case, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al. On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and the named officers for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information regarding the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, including projected net income, following the OneMain Acquisition. The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Company believes that the allegations specified in the complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, the lead plaintiff had until May 30, 2017 to file an amended complaint. As the lawsuit is in the preliminary stages, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit. OMH is a financial services holding company. PAC ANCHOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Mosquera" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Mosquera and Juan Francisco Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PAC Anchor Transportation, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC664927 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay for all time worked every pay period, specifically required minimum wages and daily overtime; failure to provide off-duty meal and rest periods to its California drivers in accordance with California Labor Code. PAC Anchor Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a transportation company located at 425 Quay Avenue, Wilrrington, California, 90744. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq, Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com ck@kbklawyers.com PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Mental Health Care --------------------------------------------------------------- Christie Thompson, writing for The Marshall Project, reports that a new lawsuit alleges mental health care at one of the highest security -- and most violent -- prisons in the country is so paltry that five-minute therapy sessions take place in the shower and suicidal inmates are given crossword puzzles. This story was produced in collaboration with National Public Radio. The class-action suit filed on June 9 takes aim at the Special Management Unit at the U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg, where most men are locked down in small solitary cells for nearly 24 hours a day. Inmates are often doubled up in the cells, which psychologists say can be even more harmful than single-celled solitary confinement. The SMU unit holds some of the federal system's most disruptive prisoners. A 2016 investigation by The Marshall Project and National Public Radio found that housing two volatile people together in the same solitary cell has fomented violence: The prison has an assault rate six times higher than federal prisons overall. Prisoners who resisted "double-celling" have been put into hard metal restraints until they complied. The lawsuit was filed against the Bureau of Prisons by the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm of Latham & Watkins." The conditions at Lewisburg are solitary confinement of two people. That causes serious problems for anyone," said Phil Fornaci, director of the D.C. Prisoners' Project at the Washington Lawyers' Committee. "For a person with a serious mental health issue, it's almost completely intolerable to be caged in that situation indefinitely . . . [And] at Lewisburg, there is virtually no treatment." The Bureau of Prisons declined to comment on pending legislation. The lawsuit alleges that mental health treatment at Lewisburg consists of counselors walking by cell doors and asking -- in full hearing range of cellmates and other prisoners -- how the inmate is doing. Those who have been flagged by the prison as mentally ill might get a five-minute therapy session in the cellblock shower. Inmates considering suicide say they have been given only a "mental health packet" containing crossword puzzles, Sudoku, and "mindfulness activities." Documents obtained by The Marshall Project and NPR through a Freedom of Information Act request show at least two men killed by their cellmates at Lewisburg were not receiving treatment for previously diagnosed mental illnesses. Jimmy Barker, who died after a fight with his cellmate in August 2015, was deemed fit for double-celled solitary despite multiple prior suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations. Gerardo Arche-Felix was allegedly strangled by his cellmate two months after Barker died. He, too, had been found by prison staff at Lewisburg to have "no significant mental health issues," although he had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia and put under an involuntary treatment order. In the months before he was killed, Arche-Felix complained in letters to his daughter that he had abruptly stopped receiving his medication while at Lewisburg. His cellmate, Jose Hernandez-Vasquez, who also had a history of mental illness, was indicted for the murder in May. Former Lewisburg inmate Andra Gray said he didn't receive the mental health care he needed during his nearly seven years in the SMU. "I was getting medication until I got to Lewisburg. And when I asked the doctor, they said, 'Oh, we don't think you need it,'" Mr. Gray said. "You're already thinking suicide within the first two or three months and then they give you a book and say, 'color this' or 'cross this word out.' You're not thinking about searching a word out. You're thinking about life or death." One of Mr. Gray's former roommates committed suicide at Lewisburg soon after they were moved into separate cells. Gray claims his cellmate threatened to commit suicide in front of guards but was ignored. One of the groups behind the lawsuit, the D.C. Prison Project, has also sued the Bureau of Prisons over mental health care at the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, known as ADX. BOP policy says seriously mentally ill inmates should not be held at ADX and the SMU. One of the named plaintiffs in the case, Jusamuel Rodriguez McCreary, is being held in an "ADX cell" at Lewisburg, where he is locked alone behind two sets of doors. He cannot hear any voices from his cell. Mr. McCreary attempted suicide at Lewisburg in May, the lawsuit says. Last year, the BOP implemented some changes to the SMU after the Department of Justice made recommendations. Many of them were aimed at mental health care, such as improving the psychiatric screening process for incoming inmates. The new policy also lessened the amount of time someone could be held in the unit. Since then, some inmates have been moved out of Lewisburg, creating more single-cells. There are now 650 men housed in the penitentiary, 485 of whom are in the SMU. But attorneys and advocates claim the changes don't go far enough. "For the people who are left there, the conditions haven't changed," said Stacey Litner, advocacy director for the D.C. Prison Project. "For the most part, people are still double- celled and there's still a complete lack of access to mental health care or medication." [GN] PIER A BATTERY: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Morales and Stephanie Neverson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Pier A Battery Park Associates, LLC, Harry Poulakakos, and Peter Poulakakos, Case No. 1:17-cv-04455 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay banquet servers and bartenders' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Pier A banquet hall located in Battery Park. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com PTC THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- PTC Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint remains pending. The Company said, "In March 2016, three purported securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming as defendants the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer. The lawsuits have been consolidated into one action captioned In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 13, 2017." "On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects as it relates to the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 6, 2014 and February 23, 2016, as well as attorneys' fees and costs." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. RAYONIER INC: Insurance Carriers to Fund Settlement Payment ----------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has agreed to cause certain of its directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers to fund a settlement payment to the class of $73 million. Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the "November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled respectively: * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395, filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474. On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015. On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20, 2016. At December 31, 2016, the case continued to be in the discovery phase and the Company could not determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood a material loss had been incurred nor could the range of any such loss be estimated. On March 13, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and all parties executed a term sheet memorializing such agreement. The parties executed and filed with the Court the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on April 12, 2017 (the "Settlement Agreement"), which the Settlement Agreement included the material terms contained in the term sheet executed on March 13. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to Court approval and requests for exclusion by members of the settlement class, the Company agreed to cause certain of its directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers to fund a settlement payment to the class of $73 million. In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed to reimburse one of its insurance carriers approximately $740,000 for certain disputed pre-litigation expenses, which reimbursement is expected to be made in the first half of 2017. The amounts agreed to on March 13, 2017, including the realized amount to be funded by the insurance carriers, were reflected in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of March 31, 2017. Rayonier is a timberland real estate investment trust ("REIT") with assets located in some of the most productive softwood timber growing regions in the United States and New Zealand. REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Still Pending in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in California. The Company said, "On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ("District Court") against us, our Chief Executive Officer, Paul C. Grint, and our Chief Operating Officer, Joseph P. Hagan. The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain purchasers of our securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related. "On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or response. "On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in the action. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." Regulus is a biopharmaceutical company. RENT-A-CENTER: Hall and DePalma Suits Pending --------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the cases, Alan Hall, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al.; James DePalma, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al. The Company said, "On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against us and certain of our former officers by Alan Hall in federal court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding our business, including implementation of our point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the period covered by the complaint. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, and seeks damages in unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and expenses." "A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter. "We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no liability in this matter." The Company's Core U.S. segment consists of company-owned rent-to- own stores in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico that lease household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. It also offers merchandise on an installment sales basis in certain stores under the names "Get It Now" and "Home Choice." RES-CARE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Employees OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Miller, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Res-Care, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00569 (S.D. Tex., June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime hours at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. Res-Care, Inc. provides home healthcare services throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com REVLON CONSUMER: Suit over Elizabeth Arden Merger Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Revlon Consumer Products Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a consolidated class action relating to the Merger Agreement with Elizabeth Arden. Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein, on July 25, 2016, a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE- 16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders with respect to the Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board. The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker case. By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on August 11, 2016 a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel advised that post consummation of the Merger they were going to file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for relief set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints. Motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint were filed on March 28, 2017. The Company believes the allegations contained in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future. The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal proceedings in the aggregate is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company's operating results for a particular period depending on, among other things, the size of the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of the Company's income for that particular period. The Company is a global beauty company with an iconic portfolio of brands. RINGCENTRAL INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the motions to dismiss and to stay a class action lawsuit are fully briefed and under submission to the Court. The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS) filed a putative class action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Court), alleging common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax cover sheets used by our customers when sending facsimile transmissions over our system (Lawsuit). SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection with its conversion claim." "On July 6, 2016, we filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the Lawsuit (Petition). The Petition remains pending. "On July 8, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss or stay the Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on our Petition. "On October 7, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its complaint. The Court concurrently dismissed our motion to dismiss or stay as moot. "SPS filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging essentially the same theories and claims. On November 21, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with a renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the FCC Petition. The motions to dismiss and to stay the Lawsuit are fully briefed and under submission to the Court. Discovery has not yet commenced. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the Lawsuit. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is too early in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this Lawsuit. Based on the information known by us as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur." RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for business communications and collaboration. The Company was incorporated in California in 1999 and was reincorporated in Delaware on September 26, 2013. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Classes Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' motion to certify proposed classes in the case, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains pending. On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit). Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied. On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes, on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes, and on March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with its subsidiaries, SC or the Company), is the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois corporation, and its subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The Company's primary business is the indirect origination and securitization of retail installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to retail consumers. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss "Parmelee" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains pending. On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings for prior reporting periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On March 14, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Parmelee Lawsuit. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with its subsidiaries, SC or the Company), is the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois corporation, and its subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The Company's primary business is the indirect origination and securitization of retail installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to retail consumers. SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Wage-and-Hour Suit Pending in California ---------------------------------------------------------- SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to accurately calculate and pay hourly and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary expenditures; failure to timely pay wages; and unfair competition. SNAP INC: "Simpson" Class Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit filed on May 23, 2017, styled 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, and Christopher Young, Case No. BC662444, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 13, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04403-GW-AFM to the proceeding. Snap Inc. operates a technology and social media company in Venice, Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com isalceda@wsgr.com SOUTHERN COPPER: "Lacey" Class Action in Discovery -------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case captioned as, Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation, currently in the discovery process. A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter. The Company has filed a response denying these allegations and is currently in the discovery process. The Company is a majority-owned, indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V. The Company is an integrated producer of copper and other minerals, and operates mining, smelting and refining facilities in Peru and Mexico. SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Still Defends "Ubaldi" Suit ---------------------------------------------- Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation. On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs. Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case. Southwest Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company for Bank SNB, which has been providing banking services since 1894. STRADENERGY SERVICES: Tristan Partners Seeks to Discontinue Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. are plaintiffs in proposed class action proceedings (the "Action") commenced in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (the "Court"), Action Number 1601-07269 against StradEnergy Services Ltd. and individual members of its Board of Directors. Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. have sought Court approval to discontinue the Action. The Action was filed pursuant to the Alberta Business Corporations Act and the Class Proceedings Act. The plaintiffs claimed damages against the defendants for oppression and negligence in relation to proposed buy-outs by Total Energy Services Inc. in 2014 and 2015. There has been no admission of liability on the part of the defendants and they deny any and all liability with respect to any of the claims made in the action. StradEnergy Services Ltd. has agreed to reimburse Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. in the amount of $12,000.00 to defray the costs they incurred in bringing an application to discontinue the Action. An application by Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. to the Court to discontinue the Action was made April 4, 2017. The Court ordered that Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. may discontinue the Action on June 30, 2017, without further Court order unless another person seeks to substitute them as plaintiff. If you wish to pursue the Action, you may wish t consult a lawyer. For further information, please contact counsel for Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd,, Evan Dickson: Torys LLP 525 - 8th Avenue S. W., 46th Floor Eighth Avenue Place East Calgary, Alberta T2P 1G1 Canada Telephone: (403) 776-3750 SUPREME INDUSTRIES: California Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Supreme Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, Mark Weber (the Company's Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W. Long (the Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016. Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. Supreme Industries, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Supreme Corporation, is a manufacturer of specialized commercial vehicles including truck bodies and specialty vehicles. TELENAV INC: Trial in "Gergetz" Suit Set for January 2020 --------------------------------------------------------- Telenav, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled for January 2020 in the class action lawsuit by Nathan Gergetz. On July 28, 2016, Nathan Gergetz filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Telenav violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class, and it alleges that Telenav caused unsolicited text messages to be sent to the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 to July 26, 2016. Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages under the TCPA law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an injunction to prevent any future violations. Telenav moved to dismiss the complaint on November 21, 2016. On April 7, 2017, the Court entered a 90 day stay in the case at the parties' request. Trial is currently scheduled for January 2020. "Due to the preliminary nature of this matter and uncertainties relating to litigation, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said. Telenav, Inc., is a provider of connected car and location-based platform products and services. TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ TerraVia Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the hearing for the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a securities class action lawsuit was scheduled for June 1, 2017. The Company said, "In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al., was filed against the Company, its then CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Norfolk Securities Class Action"). The complaint asserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired our securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to our public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleged that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by SB Oils. A consolidated complaint was filed in December 2015. In December 2016, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend." "In February 2017, the plaintiffs in the Norfolk Securities Class Action filed an amended complaint against the Company, its former CEO, Jonathan Wolfson and its current CFO/COO, Tyler Painter. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired our securities between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014. The amended complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by SB Oils. "We filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended and restated complaint on March 17, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed their Opposition to our Motion to Dismiss on April 17, 2017. The hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for June 1, 2017. We believe the complaint lacks merit, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously." TerraVia Holdings, Inc. produces food, nutrition and specialty ingredients from algae. TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Aug. 27 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Perales" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James Donato will hold a hearing for Aug. 27, 2017, to consider a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint against TerraVia Holdings, Inc. The Motion to Dismiss was filed May 29 by Defendants Apu Mody, Tyler W. Painter, TerraVia Holdings, Inc., and Jonathan S. Wolfson. TerraVia Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in November 2016, a securities class action complaint entitled Ruben Perales v. TerraVia Holdings, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its former CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its current CEO, Apu Mody and its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2016, a second, related securities class action complaint, captioned Dimitrios Daniil v. TerraVia Holdings, Inc. et al, was filed in the same court. The two cases were consolidated on April 7, 2017 (the "Perales Securities Class Action") and an amended and restated complaint was filed on April 26, 2017. The plaintiffs assert claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company said, "The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired our securities between May 4, 2016 and November 6, 2016. The plaintiffs allege that investors were misled by statements made during that period about our AlgaVia algae products and as a result our statements about our business, operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis." "We intend to file a Motion to Dismiss the complaint by May 26, 2017. We believe the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend ourselves vigorously." TerraVia Holdings, Inc. produces food, nutrition and specialty ingredients from algae. TJX COMPANIES: Defends Class Suits on Labor, Pricing Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- The TJX Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017, that it is a defendant in several class lawsuits related to its labor practices and "compare at" pricing. The Company said, "TJX is a defendant in several lawsuits filed in federal and state courts brought as putative class or collective actions on behalf of various groups of current and former salaried and hourly associates in the U.S. The lawsuits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of state wage and hour and other labor statutes, including alleged misclassification of positions as exempt from overtime, alleged entitlement to additional wages for alleged off-the-clock work by hourly employees and alleged failure to pay all wages due upon termination. TJX is also a defendant in lawsuits filed in federal courts brought as putative class actions on behalf of customers relating to TJX's compare at pricing. The lawsuits are in various procedural stages and seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In connection with ongoing litigation, an immaterial amount has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements." The TJX Companies, Inc. operates as an off-price apparel and home fashions retailer in the United States and internationally. It operates through four segments: Marmaxx, HomeGoods, TJX Canada, and TJX International. The TJX Companies, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Framingham, Massachusetts. TRUE FITNESS: Malaysia Gym Members Mull Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Mei Mei Chu, writing for The Star, reports that True Fitness Malaysia members are rallying to seek legal redress before it is too late to receive compensation due to the gym chain's abrupt closure. In some cases, banks are continuing to charge the monthly credit card instalments for membership packages. Members see an urgent need to commence legal action before the Singapore-based company is wound up here. A day after the fitness and wellness chain announced its closure in Malaysia on June 9, the "True Fitness Complaints" Facebook group was set up for "victims", including paying members and the chain's staff, to air grievances and discuss their plan of action. Leading efforts to demand a refund is accountant Vincent Goh, 52, who is urging the community to file a police report against True Fitness Malaysia and demand that the banks stop imposing monthly instalments for membership packages. Mr. Goh still has seven months left to pay on a 12-month instalment plan taken for a three-year membership package costing RM3315.05. He said banks typically respond that they will not do anything until the completion of their own investigations, which can take 45 days. "Their standard reply is 'that is between you and the vendor and we have already paid the vendor'," he said. "Some life memberships cost RM8,000 to RM9,000 while those who have VVIP memberships pay much more, " he said. Mr. Goh is also compiling a list of all affected members, which he will use to file a complaint with his assemblyman, the Malaysian Consumers Association and the Domestic Trade, Co-operatives, and Consumerism Ministry. Assisting Mr. Goh with the database of affected members is a software engineer who only wanted to be known as Chew. Ms. Chew, 26, said she was surprised to learn that the company had been recruiting new members days before its closure. "Some signed up for new packages on June 9, a day before the announcement," she said. Two lawyers and long-time True Fitness Malaysia members Chen Yu Szen and Alex Netto are contemplating a class-action suit against the company and are volunteering their legal services for free. However, legal recourse may be complicated as the holding company True Group is based in Singapore and has multiple subsidiaries in Malaysia including True Fitness Sdn Bhd, True Yoga Sdn Bhd, Fitness World Sdn Bhd and Fitness Growth Sdn Bhd. Mr. Chen highlights that action needs to be taken quickly as it will be difficult to demand compensation if the company is wound up. "That would mean it would be harder for the creditors to enforce the company's debts," the 27-year-old lawyer said. Mr. Chen claims True Fitness Malaysia's actions "reeks of fraud" as there is a clause in the contract stating that the management must provide a 30-day closure notice. On top of that, Mr. Chen said some members who visit the gym regularly have left valuables in their gym lockers with no way of retrieving them. True Fitness Malaysia and Thailand's surprise closures come a week after True Group, announced aggressive expansion plans in China. The announcement said it has ceased all operations of its gyms and spa facilities here as it was "no longer financially viable" due to evolving market conditions. The company said they will not refund customers with new or existing memberships, and that arrangements have been made with CHi Fitness to serve as an alternate gym for affected customers. CHi Fitness has denied that there is an agreement with True Fitness Malaysia to honour membership transfers to their gym centres for its members. [GN] TURN KEY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ortiz" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Turn Key Contractor Solutions, LLC and Cody Lawrence, Case No. cv-17-3517 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at 80 Orville Drive #100, Bohemia, NY 11716. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TYSON FOODS: Motion to Modify Judgment in "Edwards" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion to modify judgment in the case, Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008, remains pending. The trial court in this case, which involves the Company's Perry and Waterloo, Iowa, pork plants, decertified the state law class and granted other pre-trial motions that resulted in judgment in the Company's favor with respect to the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify this judgment. Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R). TYSON FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the court has yet to rule on the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints in the case styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. The Company said, "On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois." "The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. "Several amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on behalf of each putative class. The currently operative complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The complaints also allege that defendants "manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. "We filed motions to dismiss these complaints; the court has yet to rule on our motions." Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R). TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the court has yet to rule on the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints in the case styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. The Company said, "On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016, filed a class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, that our periodic filings contained materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation." "Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio. Each of those cases have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed. A consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017, (which also named additional individual defendants). The consolidated complaint seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. "We filed a motion to dismiss this complaint; the trial court has yet to rule on our motion." Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R). TYSON FOODS: Ruling on "Bouaphakeo" Lump Sum Award Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that in the case, Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007, the trial court has not yet enter a judgment on the lum sum award. The Company said, "A jury trial was held involving our Storm Lake, Iowa, pork plant which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities. The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the amount of $5,784,758. The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2,692,145." "We appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on August 25, 2014, and we filed a petition for rehearing on September 22, 2014, which was denied. "We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted on June 8, 2015, and oral arguments before the Supreme Court occurred on November 10, 2015. "On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's rulings and remanded to the trial court to allocate the lump sum award among the class participants. On remand, the trial court determined that the lump sum award should be allocated to class participants according to the method prescribed by plaintiffs' expert at trial. The trial court has yet to enter a judgment." Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R). TYSON FOODS: Consolidation of Two Oklahoma Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that consolidation of two class action lawsuits in Oklahoma remains pending. The Company said, "On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically- integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels" through the use of certain benchmarking services and an agreement "not to solicit or recruit growers from one another" in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs also allege that defendants exchanged grower compensation data in violation of Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. This matter is in its initial stage, and we intend to defend against these allegations." "On March 28, 2017, a second class action complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of broiler chicken farmers against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as other vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Like the Haff Poultry case described immediately above, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services and illegally exchanged information through the use of certain benchmarking services. They allege these actions violate the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. They also allege that certain payment practices of defendants are "unfair" practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. "The plaintiffs in this case and the Haff Poultry case are seeking consolidation of these cases. The matter is in its initial stage, and we intend to defend against these allegations." Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R). UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Board Discusses CEO's Fate Amid Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jo Ling Kent, Tim Stelloh and Alex Johnson, writing for NBC News, report that Uber's board of executives voted on June 11 to accept all of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's recommendations in his internal investigation of the company's months-long crisis over allegations of sexual harassment -- but it didn't say what they are. After meeting for more than six hours, the board said it voted for Mr. Holder's recommendations unanimously. Citing unnamed sources, Reuters and The New York Times separately reported that Chief Executive Travis Kalanick may also temporarily leave the company as a result of the meeting on June 11 and Mr. Holder's report. Mr. Holder and Arianna Huffington, an Uber board member, declined to comment as they emerged from the meeting. The vote comes nearly four months after a former engineer, Susan Fowler, published a blog post alleging that a superior propositioned her on her first day. When she provided documentation of the incident, she wrote, the company's human resources department defended the manager as a "high performer." Other women at Uber made similar claims about the same manager, Fowler wrote. Mr. Kalanick called the allegations "abhorrent" -- and in a separate probe, commissioned after Fowler's post, the Perkins Coie law firm examined 215 claims of harassment, bullying and inappropriate behavior. As of June 6, 20 people had been fired. One hundred cases yielded no action, and 57 were still under review, the company said. Two employees were to be given additional training, and five more were issued final warnings. The allegations and investigations marked just one scandal among many at the $70 billion company. In December, the company's former head of information security compliance alleged in a lawsuit that thousands of employees abused Uber's security systems to secretly track everyone from ex-spouses to celebrities. In April and May, class action lawsuits filed in New York and California alleged that Uber skimmed millions of dollars from passengers. The latter suit was filed one day after the company admitted that it underpaid drivers in New York City by tens of millions more. And in February, in an exchange captured on camera, an Uber driver giving Kalanick a ride complained about the company's pricing model, to which Kalanick responded: "Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own s***. They blame everything in their life on somebody else." "I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up," Mr. Kalanick later said in an email to employees about the exchange. "This is the first time I've been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it." [GN] UGI CORPORATION: Customer Appeal Pending in Eighth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an indirect customer appeal remains pending in the Eighth Circuit. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court"). In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") and, in August 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the direct customer's claims against the Partnership/UGI Corporation. The direct customers filed a petition requesting an en banc review of the Eighth Circuit, which was granted. The rehearing occurred in April 2017. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint with the District Court claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In September 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The indirect customers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit; this appeal has been stayed pending the en banc review of the direct purchasers' claims. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. This new indirect customer class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect customer plaintiffs appealed this decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect customer appeal still pending in the Eighth Circuit. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UGI Corporation ("UGI") is a holding company that, through subsidiaries and affiliates, distributes, stores, transports and markets energy products and related services. UNITED HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Ywaidree Machin-Quirantes and similarly situated individuals vs. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-22220-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Healthcare Services, Inc. operates a health care services business in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-9510 Facsimile: (305) 375-9511 UNITED JEWISH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Chez" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Epif Ania Hi Chez, Carmen Carrasco and Seferina Acosta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Jewish Council of the East Side, Home Attendant Service Corp., Case No. 653250/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. United Jewish Council of the East Side, Home Attendant Service Corp. is a not-for-profit domestic corporation that provides services to the aged and infirm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfel, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 233-3801 - and - Laura Misumi, Esq. Reena Arora, Esq. Carmela Huang, Esq. URBAN JUSTICE CENTER 123 William Street, 161h Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (646) 602-5600 Facsimile: (212) 533-4598 UNIVERSAL HAIR: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Pinos Buendia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Universal Hair Styling & Barber Shop LLC d/b/a Universal Barber Shop, Luis Manuel Nunez, Carlos Moronta, and Jose Guadalupe Nunez Bernabe, Case No. 155431/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week. The Defendants own and operate a barber shop located at 2252 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10029. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com URBAN JUSTICE: Illegally Diverts Trust Funds, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Melcon General Contractors, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Urban Justice Center and Harvey Epstein, Case No. 653263/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017), arises from the Defendants' diversion of trust funds received from New York City Economic Development Corp. for purposes unrelated to the Plaintiffs' construction and improvement work at the project known as 1080 Leggett Avenue Fit-Out, located as l080 Leggett A venue, Bronx, NY 10474, Block 2606, Lot 3. Urban Justice Center is a New York not-for-profit legal and social services corporation, having a place ofbusiness at 123 William Street, l61h Floor, New York, New York, 10038. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven E. Spada, Esq. REDMOND LAW PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 1202 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 799-8989 E-mail: sspada@redmondpllc.com VECTOR GROUP: Three Class Actions Pending Against Liggett --------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of March 31, 2017, three actions were pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of limitations and federal preemption. In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing has been held. The case has been stayed for a number of years, with the stay renewed every few years. The last stay was entered on March 16, 2016 and stays the case, including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues. Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969 should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. On May 23, 2016, the trial court ruled that the case may proceed against Liggett. Liggett requested that the trial court certify the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for review, but the trial court refused. A scheduling order was entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial proceedings and discovery is underway. It is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 90 individual cases. WELLS FARGO: Discovery Underway in Remanded Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the remanded class cases related to the Interchange Litigation. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation are named as defendants, separately or in combination, in putative class actions filed on behalf of a plaintiff class of merchants and in individual actions brought by individual merchants with regard to the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank holding companies are named as defendants in these actions. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and payment card issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates. Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation. On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated class actions and reached a separate settlement in principle of the consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The class settlement also provided for the distribution to class merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months. The District Court granted final approval of the settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the District Court appointed lead class counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. Several of the opt-out litigations were settled during the pendency of the Second Circuit appeal while others remain pending. Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the remanded class cases. WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Ongoing -------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend the RMBS Trustee Litigation. In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (the "Institutional Investor Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage- backed securities ("RMBS") trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in New York state court and in other states, by RMBS investors. The Federal Court Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Plaintiffs seek money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the Southern District of New York, and the various cases pending against us are proceeding before the same judge. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court dismissed claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (the "Dismissed Trusts"). The Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Court Complaint was granted in part and denied in part in March 2017. A complaint raising similar allegations to the Federal Court Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. In addition, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint relating to the Dismissed Trusts and certain additional trusts in California state court (the "California Action"). The California Action was subsequently dismissed in September 2016. In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new putative class action complaint in New York state court in respect of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee. WELLS FARGO: Judge Likely to Approve Phony Accounts Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Colvin, writing for Fortune, reports that when news of the Wells Fargo fake-accounts scandal broke this past September, the company's stock responded as it had for much of the year: It rose. A U.S. congressman would soon label the bank "a criminal enterprise," late-night television hosts would bash it mercilessly, and plaintiffs would file lawsuits that the company recently estimated could cost it billions of dollars. Yet on that Thursday in September -- as one of the stranger and more outrageous banking scandals in memory was being revealed to the world -- Wells Fargo's share price ticked merrily upward. Investors merely yawned at the revelation that its employees had created as many as 2.1 million phony deposit and credit card accounts for unwitting customers -- a "widespread illegal practice," in the words of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that provoked that government regulator to slam the bank with its largest-ever penalty, a $100 million fine; the bank also paid $85 million to settle with the Los Angeles City Attorney and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Wall Street analysts were as nonplussed as investors; none of the 30-plus sages who cover the company -- No. 25 on this year's Fortune 500 - - issued any urgent reassessments. Even three weeks later, with little break in the scalding headlines, John Stumpf, then Wells Fargo's CEO, was calmly telling a House committee that the scandal was "absolutely immaterial." In a narrow sense, he was right. The company would go on to earn $5.3 billion in the quarter following the scandal and another $5.5 billion in the most recent period, ending in March keeping intact a prodigious earnings streak that now runs to 18 consecutive quarters of profit above $5 billion, a feat achieved only by one other company in recent history: Apple. Last year, Wells Fargo was the fourth most profitable company overall, trailing only Apple, JPMorgan Chase, and Berkshire Hathaway. Bank deposits are up significantly, reaching an all-time high of $1.3 trillion. And the company's stock has blithely followed suit, climbing 20% from its fleeting dip in October. So, yes, with the exception of the exit of Stumpf himself (who abruptly retired in October), an outsider would be hard-pressed to see any signs of "material" fallout from ghost-account-gate. As former COO Tim Sloan, who replaced his old boss as CEO, told Fortune in May: "If we were to dial the time machine back to the summer of last year and say, 'This is what's going to happen to Wells Fargo over the next six months: Could Wells Fargo continue to generate over $5 billion of earnings [per quarter]?' I think it would be reasonable for people to say, 'Well, that's not gonna happen.' But look what's happened." Indeed. And yet, as Mr. Sloan candidly attests, there was significant fallout from the scandal. Wells Fargo faces a lingering cost that the quarterly numbers don't reveal. "From a reputational standpoint -- how our customers feel about us, our team members, how other stakeholders feel about us -- there was clearly some impact," says Mr. Sloan, a soft-spoken 57-year-old Michigander who, before joining the C-suite, worked on the business banking side of the company. Data backs him up. Perennially ranked by its corporate peers as one of the World's Most Admired Companies (it was No. 25 on Fortune's 2016 roster of all-stars), Wells Fargo didn't make the list at all this year. Likewise, the bank's ranking in Harris Poll's latest survey of corporate reputations among the general public has plunged from 70th to 99th place among the 100 "most visible" companies, above only Takata, whose defective airbags have been implicate d in several deaths, according to the U.S. government. It's "the largest drop ever measured" in the reputation poll's 18-year history, Harris says. Some cities, moreover, have deemed Wells Fargo so toxic these days that they have said they'll refrain from conducting new business with the bank. As this story was closing in early June, a federal judge in San Francisco was reviewing -- and looked likely to approve -- Wells Fargo's proposed $142 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers over the phony accounts. Additional cases, including lawsuits brought by Wells Fargo employees, shareholders, and others, remain unresolved and could prove expensive. The company's latest estimates of "reasonably possible" litigation losses range as high as $2 billion. Compounding the risk, federal and state prosecutors have been asking the company for information and could still decide to bring criminal charges. All of this continues to hang over the 165-year-old stagecoach company and could further tarnish its once-wholesome reputation. One measure of that concern--hollow though it may seem--was the shareholder vote at the company's annual meeting in April, where several directors barely managed reelection despite the bank's enviable profit streak. Chairman Steve Sanger received only 56% of the vote. "When you get just over half the vote and you're running unopposed, something is wrong," says Charles Elson, a Wells Fargo shareholder and director of the University of Delaware's John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. "The board needs to be refreshed. Everybody who's been there more than five or 10 years should go." Mr. Sloan, to his credit, has taken on the challenge with gravity and even some urgency. "We're focused on remediating and fixing everything that we've broken, and then also building a better company over time," he tells Fortune, emphasizing that the first task on that list is to rebuild trust with employees and customers: "It's much more important for us to make sure we've got the right team members in place, motivating that team, and creating that culture than it is for us to focus first on our investors," he says. At least for now, Wells Fargo's biggest and most famous shareholder, Warren Buffett, has declared his faith in the company, with Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway apparently holding on to most of its 500 million shares. Key to fixing Wells Fargo is understanding how it got broken in the first place. "How could it be such a successful bank and get into such deep trouble?" asks Harvard Business School professor Bill George, a Goldman Sachs director, former Medtronic CEO, and Wells Fargo customer and shareholder. How could so many smart people have been so wrong for so long? It's a critically important question, and Fortune spent several months trying to shed some light on the answer. The ending for this case study has yet to be written and may not be for some time. But the story so far does offer some sobering takeaways. One of those is a lesson for every company. Harvard's Bill George sums it up well: "No one can say this can't happen to us." Every tale of corporate scandal begins with culture -- and Wells Fargo's culture, at least in one prominent segment of the company's business, made it the kind of place where frontline employees could feel ungoverned and libertine enough to fabricate millions of customer accounts. It also created an environment where such behavior could be concealed, minimized, and willfully ignored by higher-ups. But the story is hardly that simple. The culture's worst features were also, in their more benign forms, key to the bank's knockout success, transforming it from America's No. 9 bank in the late 1990s, operating mostly in California, to the country's most valuable bank for a time--and even, in 2015, the most valuable bank on earth, ahead of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Today it's No. 2 globally, behind only JPMorgan Chase. That dichotomy wasn't everywhere at Wells Fargo -- but it was central to the ethos at the company's retail banking unit, known internally as the Community Bank, which is the company's biggest, most profitable segment as well as its public face. Leaders there didn't think of themselves as bankers providing services but rather as retailers selling products, and they "regularly likened the retail bank to nonbank retailers," says the investigation report of a special committee set up by Wells Fargo's board in the wake of the scandal. For example, the bank's branches weren't called "branches"; they were "stores." When employee turnover reached 41% in one 12-month period -- worryingly high for a bank -- managers reasoned that the number was normal for a retailer and thus no cause for concern. But high turnover meant many employees were extremely inexperienced -- which became a compounding problem when it came to hawking additional banking services to customers. "Cross-selling," it's called, and virtually all banks want to do more of it. Once a customer opens a checking or savings account, maybe he or she would also like an auto loan or overdraft protection or a credit card. The more products a customer has with a bank, the more money the bank makes and the less likely the customer is to leave. That's why all banks cross-sell. But arguably no bank has ever done it with the fevered intensity of Wells Fargo. The obsession with cross-selling dates back to Wells Fargo's 1998 acquisition by Minneapolis-based Norwest, whose CEO, Richard Kovacevich, adopted the more prestigious Wells Fargo name for the merged business. He urged employees to "Go for Gr-eight," achieving an average of eight banking products per customer. This seemed an insanely ambitious goal; at most banks the average was two or three. But Mr. Kovacevich stuck with it. So did Mr. Stumpf, a Norwest banker who ran the retail bank before succeeding Mr. Kovacevich as CEO. And so did Carrie Tolstedt, another Norwest banker whom Mr. Stumpf considered "the best banker in America." She ran the retail bank from 2007 until the company announced her retirement at age 56, six weeks before the scandal became public. "Go for Gr-eight" remained the retail bank's stated goal until last year. One result of this hard-charging sales culture was that Wells Fargo became the envy of the industry, achieving towering dominance in products per customer: an unheard-of 6.1, vs. an industry average of 2.7. Bankers everywhere wondered how they did it. Every managerial program has a life span. Employees eventually figure out how to game the program, or the environment changes and it no longer serves a useful purpose, or it accomplishes all it can accomplish. All those things happened with "Go for Gr-eight." But senior leaders seemed oblivious to these limits, and as the program intensified over many years, they did little to rein it in. Whenever a note of caution rang, the company's Kafkaesque bureaucracy stifled effective action. An early warning appeared in the spring of 2002, when practically all the employees of a Colorado branch jointly gamed the program in an effort to meet sales goals, including by issuing debit cards that customers didn't ask for. The board report explains that firing everyone as required by federal law would have left the branch virtually empty, so Wells Fargo arranged a regulatory exception that allowed some lower-level workers to stay. Everyone else in the branch retired or was terminated. Such behavior -- opening accounts or issuing products that customers didn't ask for -- was and is against the rules at Wells Fargo, and when the bank found employees doing so, as it increasingly did after 2002, it would fire them. Senior leaders believed they were thus addressing the problem. But unethical employees weren't the cause of the dysfunction; they were mostly an effect of it. The problem was targets that couldn't possibly be met and a high-pressure sales culture that made the typical car dealership seem like a meditation retreat. Many sales organizations report results every month or week. Wells Fargo branch managers in some regions had to report sales data every hour in calls with district managers. Branch managers therefore leaned heavily on their staff to sell. Even tellers were supposed to sell products, in some cases at least 100 per quarter. Individual employees were constantly and publicly ranked against one another, as were branches, districts, and regions. At every level, from tellers up through district managers and their bosses, those who beat sales targets were celebrated, and those who didn't were publicly humiliated, sometimes demoted, and occasionally fired. Training in "questionable sales practices was required or you were to be fired," a former employee tells Fortune. "We were constantly told we would end up working for McDonald's" for not meeting quotas, a former branch manager told the Los Angeles Times in 2013; another former branch manager said employees "talked a homeless woman into opening six checking and savings accounts with fees totaling $39 a month." That newspaper article sparked an investigation by the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, leading eventually to the actions brought by that office and the others that were settled last September. "Managers constantly hound, berate, demean, and threaten employees to meet these unreachable quotas," the Los Angeles suit alleged. "Managers often tell employees to do whatever it takes to reach their quotas. Employees who do not reach their quotas are often required to work hours beyond their typical work schedule without being compensated for that extra work time, and/or are threatened with termination." The message was clear to everyone in the retail bank: "The route to success was selling more than your peers," the board's investigation found -- not profitability or customer satisfaction, but simply selling more products to each customer. Everyone knew the goals were sheer fantasy for many branches and employees. At some branches not enough customers walked in the door, or area residents were too poor to need more than a few banking products. Bank leaders called overall quotas "50/50 plans" because they figured only half the regions could meet them. Yet no excuses were tolerated. You met the quotas or paid a price. The predictable result: fake accounts. Employees began issuing unrequested credit cards to existing customers or opening additional deposit accounts with fake email addresses (such as "noname@wellsfargo.com") so the customer would never know. A slightly safer tactic was to open ghost accounts for friends and family. The board's investigation found a branch manager who had a teenage daughter with 24 accounts, an adult daughter with 18 accounts, a husband with 21 accounts, a brother with 14 accounts, and a father with four accounts. That was more than bad enough, but an even worse cultural problem was what happened higher up: nothing. Or at least nothing effective. As signs of trouble mounted alarmingly for years, top leaders consistently underreacted. The reasons were several, none of them unique to Wells Fargo or to banking. Ever since the Norwest takeover, the company had maintained a strong tradition of deference to the leaders of each business unit, who were urged to "run it like you own it." Mr. Kovacevich called himself a "CEO of CEOs." The theory was that everything, including risk management, worked better when decisions were made closer to the customer. Ms. Tolstedt, the retail banking head, was therefore expected to take full charge of any problems in her business, and the guiding standard of deference meant she was not pushed hard on the phony-accounts problem until late in the game. That culture proved particularly troublesome with Ms. Tolstedt at the helm because she was "insular and defensive and did not like to be challenged or hear negative information," the board's investigation concluded. "Even senior leaders within the Community Bank were frequently afraid of or discouraged from airing contrary views." (Ms. Tolstedt has not spoken publicly since leaving the bank, and she did not respond to an interview request from Fortune conveyed through her lawyer. When the board issued its findings, her lawyer said, "We strongly disagree with the report and its attempt to lay blame with Ms. Tolstedt. A full and fair examination of the facts will produce a different conclusion.") RELATED Compounding the problem was a dysfunctional second line of defense: a corporate bureaucracy so sprawling that all its elements could plausibly evade full responsibility for the scandal. For example, the corporate chief risk officer had no authority over the retail bank's risk officer, who reported only to Ms. Tolstedt. The HR department regarded employee bad behavior as an issue of training, incentive compensation, and performance management. The internal investigations and audit department looked for problems but didn't propose solutions; ditto the sales and service conduct oversight team. The law department's employment section focused mainly on litigation risks from firing employees. These are only a minor fraction of the individuals, offices, committees, boards, departments, groups, task forces, and teams that examined sales problems in the retail bank. Each concerned itself with its assigned slice of the issue; no one looked for the root cause or envisioned big-picture consequences. "Bureaucracies love to lie to themselves," says University of Michigan leadership authority Noel Tichy. "The hardest thing is to get a bureaucracy to be honest." At the top of this bureaucracy was Mr. Stumpf, whose tepid response to information that should have triggered loud alarms is one of the most striking features of the scandal. Internally reported cases of sales gaming rose from 63 in 2000 to about 680 in 2004. In the second quarter of 2007, company bosses received 288 allegations of employee sales misconduct; that figure soared to 1,469 in the fourth quarter of 2013. Yet when Mr. Stumpf was told that the retail bank was firing 1% of its employees every year for sales integrity violations, he saw it as excellent news because it showed that 99% were following the rules. He reiterated the point in an email to Mr. Sloan: "Do you know only around 1% of our people lose their jobs [for] gaming the system, and about 2/3 of those are for gaming the monitoring of the system, i.e. changing phone numbers, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth on forcing products on customers. In any case, right will win and we are right. Did some do things wrong - - you bet and that is called life. This is not systemic." (Mr. Stumpf, through his lawyer, declined a request for an interview.) Just as Mr. Stumpf and nearly everyone else focused too narrowly when looking inward ("This is not systemic"), they also focused too narrowly when looking outward. They figured, correctly but narrowly, that direct financial harm to customers from sales gaming in the form of unwarranted fees and penalties was insignificant in Wells Fargo's overall results. But no one seems to have envisioned the reputational threat -- specifically, to have imagined how news media and social media would react to the words "2 million fake accounts." Which brings us to Sept. 8, 2016, when Wells Fargo announced it would pay $185 million to the City of Los Angeles, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The public response quickly made clear how badly the bank's leaders had underestimated that announcement's effect--even if shareholders were still mostly unalarmed. As Senate and House committees sum moned Mr. Stumpf to testify, executives and directors switched into crisis mode. "Tim [Sloan] really stepped up and grabbed the company by the collar even before John's fate was determined," notes David Carroll, who runs the company's wealth and investment management business. Within five days the company announced that all sales goals at the retail bank would be eliminated. By September's end, the board had clawed back $19 million worth of stock awards to Ms. Tolstedt, denied her severance pay or a 2016 bonus, and determined that she should be fired for cause. It also rescinded -- reportedly at the CEO's own request -- $41 million of unvested stock for Mr. Stumpf, who stepped down from his roles as chairman and chief executive on Oct. 12. With the board's explicit support, Mr. Sloan has since made broad organizational changes that are the infrastructure for culture change. Even before the scandal became public (but while the settlements were being negotiated), he had orchestrated Ms. Tolstedt's retirement and her replacement by Mary Mack, who was running the brokerage business and who had come to Wells Fargo in its 2008 takeover of Wachovia. On Jan. 1 he instituted a new incentive compensation plan in the retail bank that pays employees on the basis of customer satisfaction and achievement of team goals, among other measures, but not product sales goals. The branches aren't "stores" anymore; they're branches. No one in the company gets evaluated on products per customer, and after almost 20 years, the company no longer reports that number to investors. Repairing a critical structural error, Mr. Sloan has fully centralized the risk and HR functions, so the leaders of those departments in the business units now report to their corporate chiefs without even a dotted line to the business unit head. He consolidated much of the vast risk-control bureaucracy into a new office of ethics, oversight, and integrity, accountable to the board's risk committee. In February the board fired four more retail bank executives for cause, and in April it clawed back an additional $47 million of Mr. Tolstedt's pay and an additional $28 million of Mr. Stumpf's. All of that needed doing before Mr. Sloan could finally start the culture-change project in earnest. He knows that culture doesn't come from policy; it comes from leaders' day-to-day behavior, and it cascades. What will he ask of his direct reports? Who will get promoted? How will frontline workers be evaluated, promoted, paid? Crucially important: What will happen when an employee calls the ethics hotline? "With 269,000 employees, it's inevitable that there are some who will lie, cheat, and steal," says the University of Michigan's Tichy. The question is what the leaders will do to discourage it, discover it, and deal with it." Every employee will be watching for the answers. In trying to change its culture, Wells Fargo holds an advantage over most big, old, successful companies. As an amalgam of many banks, it doesn't have a deeply rooted, oak-strong culture like, say, General Motors had when CEO Mary Barra launched her culture- change effort after the 2014 ignition-switch scandal. With Norwesters Stumpf and Tolstedt gone, and the main elements of the Norwest model-extreme decentralization and "Go for Gr-eight"-- purged, Mr. Sloan faces an opportunity to create something new: a strong, companywide, uniquely Wells Fargo culture. It can't happen quickly. "It takes years to behave your way out of a problem like this, to become the company you dream of becoming," says Douglas Conant, who transformed Campbell Soup's culture and rescued the company in the early 2000s. Wells Fargo today doesn't need rescuing, just fixing -- and it needs someone to instill the right culture. If Sloan remains CEO until he's 65, and remembers that culture is what he's creating with his every act every day for the next eight years, he could do it. A version of this article appears in the June 15, 2017 issue of Fortune with the headline "Can Wells Fargo Get Well?". [GN] WESTERN DIGITAL: Suit by Union Asset and KBC Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the consolidated class action lawsuit led by Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group"). In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in April 2016. In June 2016, the District Court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. In January 2017, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to the defendants filing a renewed motion to dismiss, which the defendants filed soon thereafter. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer, and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in virtually every industry. The Company also generates license and royalty revenue related to its intellectual property. WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal in Ritz Camera Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal related to the class action lawsuit by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") remains pending. In June 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that SanDisk violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk- controlled joint ventures from June 2006 through the present. The complaint alleged that SanDisk created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. The complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. In February 2011, the District Court granted in part SanDisk's motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. Between 2013 and 2014, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to substitute in as named plaintiff Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, and the Trustee's motions to add as named plaintiffs CPM Electronics Inc., E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc. In May 2015, the District Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In April 2016, the District Court granted SanDisk's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims. In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is currently pending. Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer, and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in virtually every industry. The Company also generates license and royalty revenue related to its intellectual property. WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery Stayed in SD Cards Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery has been stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the class action lawsuit buy indirect purchasers of SD cards. In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, as well as common law claims. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al. In May 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed. In May 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. In September 2015, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. In November 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' federal law claims. In October 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion with leave to amend and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining claims. Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer, and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in virtually every industry. The Company also generates license and royalty revenue related to its intellectual property. WESTERN REFINING: Says NTI Merger Litigation in Earliest Stages --------------------------------------------------------------- Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the NTI Merger Litigation is in the earliest stages of litigation. On August 24, 2016, an alleged Northern Tier Energy LP ("NTI") unitholder ("Plaintiff") filed a purported class action lawsuit against Western, NTI, NTI GP, members of the NTI GP board of directors at the time of the NTI Merger, Evercore Group, L.L.C. ("Evercore"), and MergerCo (collectively, "Defendants") (the "NTI Merger Litigation"). The NTI Merger Litigation appears to challenge the adequacy of disclosures made in connection with the NTI Merger. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees. Western believes the NTI Merger Litigation is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Western Refining, Inc. produces refined products at its refineries in El Paso, Texas, near Gallup, New Mexico and St. Paul Park, Minnesota. WESTERN REFINING: Tesoro Merger Litigation Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Tesoro Merger Litigation has been dismissed. The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Tesoro Merger Agreement") with Tesoro Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Tesoro"), Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 1"), and Tahoe Merger Sub 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 2"), pursuant to which Merger Sub 1 will merge with and into the Company (the "First Tesoro Merger," and, if a second merger election as discussed below is not made, the "Tesoro Merger"), with the Company surviving the First Tesoro Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesoro. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Tesoro Merger Agreement, upon consummation of the First Tesoro Merger, each share of our common stock, par value $0.01 per share issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the First Tesoro Merger (excluding our common stock owned by the Company or Tesoro or any of their respective direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries that are not held on behalf of third parties) will be converted into and become exchangeable for, at the election of the holder of each share of our common stock, either (a) $37.30 in cash or (b) 0.4350 shares of Tesoro common stock, par value $0.16 2/3 per share, in each case without interest and subject to proration." As of February 8, 2017, Western was named as defendants in five substantially similar purported stockholder class actions by Western stockholders (the "Tesoro Merger Litigation"). The suits challenge the adequacy of the disclosures made in connection with the Tesoro Merger. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger until additional information relating to the transaction is disclosed. The Tesoro Merger Litigation was dismissed with prejudice on March 20, 2017. Western Refining, Inc. produces refined products at its refineries in El Paso, Texas, near Gallup, New Mexico and St. Paul Park, Minnesota. ZYNGA INC: Settlement in "Lee" Won Final Approval ------------------------------------------------- Zynga, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in the case, Lee v. Pincus, et al., has been approved on a final basis, and the case has been dismissed. The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The complaint further stated that "Zynga is named as a defendant herein solely because it is a party to agreements underlying and relating to the Secondary Offering." The plaintiff sought to represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss brought by the Company and the directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as defendants. "On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 19, 2015, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director defendants from the case. "Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015, and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On July 27, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date of October 9, 2017. "Before the trial date, a mediation session was conducted on September 20, 2016 where the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle Lee v. Pincus, et al. as to all defendants for $10.0 million. The parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the court on December 15, 2016. On March 27, 2017, the Court approved the settlement and entered final judgment dismissing the action. The settlement was funded entirely by insurance and resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the defendants. Accordingly, and also because no claim for damages was asserted against the Company and the Company is not considered the obligor in the matter, and there was no impact to the Company's financial statements." * Belgium Declares New Provisions on Class Action Procedure ----------------------------------------------------------- Loyens & Loeff wrote that on 18 May 2017, the Belgian Federal Parliament adopted a new Act on actions for damages for competition law infringements (the "Competition Law Damages Act"). The Competition Law Damages Act transposes Directive 2014/104/EU (the "EU Damages Directive") into Belgian law, which aims to make it easier for victims of competition law infringements to claim damages for the harm they suffered. The Competition Law Damages Act was published in the Belgian Official Gazette on June 12, 2017, and will enter into force on 22 June 2017. Competition law enforcement has two main prongs: public and private enforcement. The public enforcement is observed by the European Commission and the National Competition Authorities, such as the Belgian Competition Authority ("BCA"), which investigate alleged competition law infringements, on their own initiative, following a complaint, or following a leniency application or whistle-blower declaration. The competition authorities may impose heavy administrative fines on violators. The Competition Law Damages Act on the other hand, deals with private enforcement. This is the right of victims of competition law infringements to claim for damages against violators for the harm they allegedly suffered. In the United States victims are very active in private enforcement. In Belgium and in most other EU member states there have been relatively few actions for damages from competition law infringements up to date. The European Commission ascribes this inter alia to the fact that private parties have difficult access to proof obtained by competition authorities, to the legal uncertainty resulting from fragmented national rules and to the difficulties concerning quantification and attribution of damages, which often requires an in-depth economic analysis. The EU Damages Directive seeks to remedy those issues and enable victims of competition law infringements in their efforts to seek damages. The Competition Law Damages Act transposes the directive into Belgian law by introducing, inter alia, the following rules: -- it stresses the right of a victim to full compensation of the harm done. While this is not a departure from general Belgian civil law, the explicit mention of this principle stresses the importance of victim indemnification; -- it facilitates private parties' burden of proof by introducing several presumptions, including: * a finding by the BCA or the Brussels Court of Appeal of a competition law infringement irrefutably proves the existence of the infringement (a similar presumption already exists with respect to decisions of the European Commission). * the Competition Law Damages Act also introduces the refutable presumption that a cartel caused harm. -- it introduces rules concerning private parties' access to proof. In particular, the Competition Law Damages Act introduces the possibility for private parties to gain limited access to the BCA's dossier, under certain conditions and exceptions (it is e.g. not possible to gain access to leniency or settlement applications). -- undertakings who together have committed a competition law infringement are jointly and severally liable. Exceptions to this principle apply e.g. to small and medium-sized enterprises. -- the Act contains provisions on the so-called "passing on" of overcharges (i.e. the difference between the price actually paid and the price which would have been paid without infringement). Passing on means that the direct customer of a cartel member has passed on the overcharges to its customer (the indirect customer). In that respect, the Act provides the following: * in a claim between a direct customer and a cartel member, the latter may rely on passing on in defence to a claim for damages. * in a claim between an indirect customer and a cartel member, passing on is presumed to have occurred if (i) the defendant has committed a competition law infringement, (ii) the infringement has led to overcharges for the direct customer and (iii) the direct customer provided goods or services covered by the infringement to the indirect customer. The presumption does not, however, apply if the cartel member makes a reasonable case that the surcharges were not passed on to the indirect customer. -- it provides for a favourable regime regarding amicable settlements between competition law infringers and victims. In this respect, the Competition Law Damages Act allows the BCA e.g. to take into account the fact that an undertaking has indemnified victims when calculating fines under a public enforcement procedure. -- it declares the new provisions applicable to the Belgian class action procedure for consumers, the so-called "action for collective recovery". In practice, this will mean that consumers who are the victim of a competition law infringement may pool their claims and jointly file for damages. Three things one should take away from this new Act: 1. The new Act is victim-friendly and will likely lead to more claims for damages against undertakings who have been found guilty of competition law infringements by the European Commission or a National Competition Authority; 2. The provisions also apply to the Belgian class action procedure, allowing consumers to pool their claims and jointly file for damages. 3. Leniency or settlement applications remain confidential and victims are not allowed access to those documents. It is therefore likely that leniency or settlement applications will remain an option companies must take into account. The Competition Law Damages Act was published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 12 June 2017 and will enter into force on 22 June 2017. [GN] ********* 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 * * *