/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170727.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 147 Headlines AECOM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sievert Amends Class Cert. Bid Under FDCPA ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERICA TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Suit by Former Akers Employees Pending ATHENE HOLDING: Wins Dismissal of "Hudson" Suit ATHENE HOLDING: "Griffiths" Suit in Discovery Process ATOSSA GENETICS: Class Action Appeal Underway AUDIOEYE INC: Settlement of Sec. Litigation Has Final Approval AVID TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Mohanty Amended Complaint BAHAMAS UPHOLSTERY: "Diaz" Labor Case Seeks Unpaid Overtime BANK OF AMERICA: Wins OK of "Pastor" Suit Deal; Hearing Jan. 11 BROTHERS MOTHERS: "Buckler" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages BURGER KING: Sued by Gesten Over FCRA Violations CAPNIA INC: "Garfield" Class Action Settled and Dismissed CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Merger w/ Sabra Health Care CARNIVAL CORP: Wins OK of "Charvat" Suit Deal; Hearing April 4 CARRINGTON'S CARING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Providence Class Action Underway CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Expects Settlement to Conclude in Q3 2017 CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Aug. 25 Case Conference in "French" Suit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Trial Not Yet Scheduled in Merger Suit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Peter Piper Litigation Still Pending CEMTREX INC: Defending Against 3 Securities Suits CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Final Approval of "Brown" Case Deal CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends "Guglielmo" Suit CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Suit Underway CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Says Muransky, Tibbits & Zhang Suits Related CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Against "Rodriguez" Suit CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Motions for Summary Disposition Still Pending CLECO CORPORATE: Appeal in Merger Class Action Pending COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Long" Suit Approved COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Subsidiary Still Faces "Bass" Suit CVB FINANCIAL: Approval of Wage-Hour Accord Expected in Q3 2017 CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Litigation Underway DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in "Weinstat" Case Pending DENTSPLY SIRONA: Center City Periodontists Case Underway DRUG DEPOT: Fauley Moves to Certify Two Classes Over Sent Faxes EBIX INC: Discovery Underway in Stockholder Suit EXPRESS RECOVERY: Accused by "Alonso" Suit of Violating FDCPA FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Court Narrows Claims in "Letizia" FARMER BROS: Still Faces Hernandez and Zuno Cases FASHION NOVA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure Properly Pay Employees FEMALE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merger Class Action FIDELITY INFORMATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss "Raul" Suit Pending FIRST TRINITY: Class Suit over Insurance Product Pending GAS NATURAL: Settlement in "Masters" Case Approved GC SERVICES: "Frand" Consumer Lawsuit Alleges FDCPA Violation GENVEC INC: MOU Reached in Stockholder Actions GOSMITH INC: "Rojas" Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid for Conditional Cert in "Clinton" OK'd GPS HOLDINGS: Cancel Seeks to Certify Class of Massage Therapists HALLIBURTON CO: Faces "Leblanc" Suit Alleging Misclassification HD SUPPLY: Retirement System Alleges Securities Act Violation HOUSTON DISTRIBUTING: Salais' Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied HYATT EQUITIES: Class Certification Sought in "Guarisma" Suit ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Suit Underway IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Consolidated Stockholder Action Underway INC RESEARCH: Faces "Fink" Suit Over Proposed Merger w/ inVentiv INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidate Class Action INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Rubin" Class Suit Underway INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Westmoreland Suit Underway INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss "Blair" Suit Underway INVENTURE FOODS: Defending Against "Schoenfeld" Class Suit INVENTURE FOODS: Still Defends "Robinson" Suit INWELL INC: "Culley" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Operators ISORAY INC: Lawsuit Related to Equity Plans Resolved J JAIME: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages JEMA CONSTRUCTION: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JONES FINANCIAL: Retirement Plan Litigation Remains Pending JOYERIA ELIZABETH: Accused by "Diaz" Suit of Violating FLSA, NYLL KATE SPADE: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Sale to Coach Inc. KELLY SERVICES: Aug. 2 Final Settlement Hearing KNAUF GIPS: Mitchell Co. Moves to Certify Class in Drywall Suit LAUREATE EDUCATION: MDL Panel Denied Bid to Transfer Suit LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION: Opposed Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit MABRY MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims MANNKIND CORPORATION: Defending Against Class Suit MDL 2311: September 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MEDTRONIC INC: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Madar" Action Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: "Amzallag" Consumer Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation MILDON BUS: Community Vocational Moves for Class Certification MY SIZE: Defending Against Class Action in Tel Aviv NATIONAL GAS: Faces Suit Over Intrusive Making Telemarketing Calls OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Violates Securities Laws, Gallagher Claims OPTIO SOLUTIONS: "Duncan" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter PANDA III: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Sun" Action Claims PCM INC: Aug. 7 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff PEABODY ENERGY: "Lynn" Plaintiffs File Appeal PETERSON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss "Halvorsen" Denied PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss Effexor End-Payers' Claims Pending PFIZER INC: Appeal in Lipitor Litigation Remains Pending PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Action in Ontario Discontinued PFIZER INC: Celebrex End-Payers' Appeal Underway PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing PFIZER INC: Suits over Eliquis Ongoing PFIZER INC: Defending Against EpiPen Purchasers' Suits POPULAR INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in "Perez" Suit POPULAR INC: "Torres" Class Suit Underway POPULAR INC: "Camacho" Mortgage-Related Litigation Underway POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Case in Discovery Phase POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Suit Underway PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Suit over CIBC Merger Dismissed PTC INC: Settlement in "Crandall" Suit Pending RELIANT CAPITAL: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Etienne" Suit RENTECH INC: Shareholder Lawsuits at Preliminary Stage RESONANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Nov. 20 RIGHTSIDE GROUP: Faces "Paskowitz" Suit Over Sale to Donuts ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Junks TRO Bid in Search & Seizure Suit SANTEK WASTE: "Smith" Suit in Ala. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SEAVIEW RESTAURANTS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners SHAKE SHACK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SM ENERGY: "Lirette" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Roxberry" Class Suit Pending SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Scheurer" Class Suit Pending SNYDER'S-LANCE: Settlement in "Sparks" Case Pending SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Bensman" Class Suit Pending SNYDER'S-LANCE: Late July's Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending SPORT CARWASH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Minimum Wages, Arinah Says STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Action Lawsuits Ongoing STERICYCLE INC: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Underway STERICYCLE INC: TCPA Lawsuit Underway SUNOPTA INC: Pre-Class Certification Discovery Underway SUNPOWER CORP: Aug. 31 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Securities Violations TECOGEN INC: Bid for Expedited Discovery in "May" Action Denied TECOGEN INC: "Vardakas" Action in Earliest Phase TELIGENT INC: 10 Putative Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits Filed TITANIUM CONSTRUCTIONS: Court Certifies Class in "Samaniego" TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Marketed Aloe Vera Products, Action Claims TRANSENTERIX INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bankley" Underway TRANSENTERIX INC: "Maine" Class Action Remains Stayed TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Unpaid Toll Suit Granted TRG CUSTOMER: Cronk Seeks Compensation for Off-the-Clock Work TRIBUNE MEDIA: Duffy Challenges Proposed Merger With Sinclair TRICO BANCSHARES: Settlement of Bankers' Suit Pending TRINITY COURIERS: Faces "Green" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation U-HAUL CO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Reservation Policy UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces "Sacchi" Suit Over Breach of Contract UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Claims vs. FHFA, Treasury Affirmed USANA HEALTH: Defending Against Class Action in Utah VITA-MIX CORP: $1.6MM Class Deal in "Gooding" Has Prelim OK VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Suit Underway WARNER NELSON: 9th Cir. Vacates Atty Fees Award in ERISA Suit WEIBO CORP: Goldsmith Sues Over Non-disclosure, Share Price Drop WENDY'S COMPANY: Torres and FI Cases Pending in Florida XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Faces "Trejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ********* AECOM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending. On September 1, 2016, an AECOM stockholder filed a securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the Company and its senior executives made materially false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws. On March 6, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on April 3, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on multiple grounds including the failure to adequately allege any material misrepresentations by the Company. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or ability to conduct business. AECOM is a fully integrated firm positioned to design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sievert Amends Class Cert. Bid Under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-01309-WED (E.D. Wisc.), files with the Court an amended motion for class certification. Mr. Sievert defines the class as (a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who were sent a collection letter by Alltran, (c) stating that Alltran is licensed by the Division of Banking in Wisconsin, (d) seeking to collect a debt for personal, family or household purposes, (e) on or after September 29, 2015 and up to and including September 29, 2016, (f) that was not returned by the postal service. The case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters used by Alltran to collect consumer debts owed to third parties. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mr. Sievert also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dijr6OtI The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Darrenton Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aloha Pools and Spas, LLC, Aloha Pools and Spas of Jackson, LLC and Dennis and Michelle Cook, Case No. 1:17-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a family business building custom in-ground swimming pools and spas in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com AMERICA TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Cacucciolo, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. America Trading Service and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC667025 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide duty free meal and rest periods and failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code. America Trading Service is engaged in the business of providing trucking and transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Struss, Esq. Andrew C. Ellison, Esq. Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq. STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC 121 North Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641-6600 Facsimile: (805) 641-6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com andrew@strausslawyers.com AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Suit by Former Akers Employees Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit by retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company. In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL- CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The complaint seeks class certification. The Corporation believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it. "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Corporation believes that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its subsidiaries (the "Corporation") manufacture and sell highly engineered, high performance specialty metal products and customized equipment utilized by industry throughout the world. ATHENE HOLDING: Wins Dismissal of "Hudson" Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the case, Hudson v. Athene Annuity and Life Company et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00089 (S.D. Iowa), Judge Stephanie M Rose on May 11, 2017, entered an order granting a Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. On May 16, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Athene Annuity and Life Company, Athene Asset Management, L.P., Athene Holding Ltd., Athene Life Re Ltd., Athene USA Corporation against Don Hudson. The Court terminated the case. Athene Holding Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that, "On June 12, 2015, Don Hudson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California against us. The complaint, which is similar to complaints recently filed against other large insurance companies, primarily alleges that captive reinsurance and other transactions had the effect of misrepresenting the financial condition of Athene Annuity and Life Company (AAIA). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of annuity products issued by AAIA between 2007 and the present and asserts claims against AHL, ALRe, AUSA and AAIA in addition to Apollo and AAM. There are also various allegations related to the purchase of Aviva USA and concerning entry into a modco transaction with ALRe in October 2013. The suit asserts claims of violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks compensatory damages, trebled, in an amount to be determined, costs and attorneys' fees." "On March 25, 2016, the matter was transferred to the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa (S.D. IA Court). On May 25, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint dropping plaintiff Silva and defendant Aviva plc. We moved to dismiss that complaint on June 30, 2016, and the motion was fully briefed as of September 8, 2016. "On November 14, 2016, the court stayed consideration of the motion to dismiss pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a similar case which will likely affect the disposition of our motion. See Ludwick v. Harbinger Grp., Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Mo. 2016), appeal docketed, No. 16-1561 (8th Cir.). On April 13, 2017, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims in Ludwick, and Athene has advised the S.D. IA Court. "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the litigation and, as mentioned, have sought dismissal of the amended complaint. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in this matter, reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated at this time." Athene conducts its business primarily through the following consolidated subsidiaries: Athene Life Re Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company to which AHL's other insurance subsidiaries and third party ceding companies directly and indirectly reinsure a portion of their liabilities (ALRe); Athene USA Corporation, an Iowa corporation and its subsidiaries (Athene USA); and Athene Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, a German partnership and its subsidiaries (ADKG). ATHENE HOLDING: "Griffiths" Suit in Discovery Process ----------------------------------------------------- Athene Holding Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties in the class action lawsuit by John Griffiths are engaged in the discovery process. On July 27, 2015, John Griffiths, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against us. An amended complaint was filed on December 18, 2015. The complaint asserts claims against AHL, AAIA and Athene London Assignment Corporation (Athene London), in addition to an Aviva defendant. AHL is a named defendant due to its purchase of Aviva USA, and AAIA and Athene London are named as successors to Aviva Life Insurance Company and Aviva London Assignment Corporation, respectively. The complaint alleges a putative class action on behalf of all persons who are the beneficial owners of assets which were used to purchase structured settlement annuities that Aviva Life Insurance Company, Aviva London Assignment Corporation, and Aviva International Insurance Limited (Aviva Entities) or their predecessors, as applicable, delivered to purchasers on or after April 1, 2003. The complaint alleges that the Aviva Entities sold structured settlement annuities to the public on the basis that such products were backed by a capital maintenance agreement by Aviva International Insurance Limited or its predecessor, which was alleged as a source of great financial strength. The complaint further alleges that the Aviva Entities used this capital maintenance agreement to enhance the sales volume and raise the price of the annuities. The complaint claims that, as a result of Aviva USA's sale to AHL, the capital maintenance agreement terminated. According to the complaint, no notice was provided to the owners of the structured settlement annuities and the termination of the capital maintenance agreement constituted a breach of contract, and the plaintiff further asserts other causes of action. The defendants have answered and are engaged in the discovery process. "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in this matter, reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated at this time," the Company said. Athene conducts its business primarily through the following consolidated subsidiaries: Athene Life Re Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company to which AHL's other insurance subsidiaries and third party ceding companies directly and indirectly reinsure a portion of their liabilities (ALRe); Athene USA Corporation, an Iowa corporation and its subsidiaries (Athene USA); and Athene Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, a German partnership and its subsidiaries (ADKG). ATOSSA GENETICS: Class Action Appeal Underway --------------------------------------------- Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal related to a class action complaint remains pending. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount." "On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co- lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is fully-briefed and oral argument was scheduled for May 18, 2017. "We believe this complaint is without merit and plan to defend ourselves vigorously; however failure to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of March 31, 2017. The costs associated with defending and resolving the complaint and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct of our business, will depend upon many unknown factors and management's view of these may change in the future." Atossa Genetics Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated on April 30, 2009 in the State of Delaware. The Company was formed to develop and market medical devices, laboratory tests and therapeutics to address breast health conditions. AUDIOEYE INC: Settlement of Sec. Litigation Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Court has issued a final order approving the settlement in the case, AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litigation. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.audioeyesecuritieslitigation.com/ In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against AudioEye, Inc. and former officers Nathaniel Bradley and Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. A consolidated amended complaint was filed under the caption In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litigation. On July 25, 2016, in connection with a voluntary mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated actions subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval. A written Stipulation of Settlement was executed and filed with the Court in December 2016. On January 23, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, provisionally certified a settlement class of shareholders, and directed plaintiffs' counsel to provide notice to that class. On May 8, 2017, the Court held a Final Settlement Hearing subsequent to which the Court issued a final order approving the settlement in all respects, certifying a settlement class, and dismissing the case with prejudice. As previously reported, on July 26, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint entitled Denese M. Hebert, derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant AudioEye, Inc., v. Bradley, et al., was filed in the State of Arizona Superior Court for Pima County. The complaint generally asserted causes of action related to the Company's restatement of its financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of 2014. As a derivative complaint, the plaintiff- shareholder purported to act on behalf of the Company against the Named Individuals. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The named individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety, and denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint. AVID TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Mohanty Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12336 (D. Mass.), an amended complaint was fled against Louis Hernandez, Jr., Avid Technology, Inc., and Ilan Sidi on April 19. Defendants on June 14 filed a Motion and Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The Hon. Indira Talwani oversees the case. Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in November 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-12336) against the Company and certain of its executive officers seeking unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaint purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint's allegations relate generally to the Company's disclosure surrounding the level of implementation of the Company's Avid NEXIS solution product offerings. On February 7, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel in the matter. The matter is not yet scheduled for trial. Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware for digital media content production, management and distribution. BAHAMAS UPHOLSTERY: "Diaz" Labor Case Seeks Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Javier Soache Diaz and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bahamas Upholstery & Marine Canvas, Inc., Bahamas Auto Repairs, Inc., William Lanzas, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 22397 (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act along with court costs, interest and any other relief. Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiff as a car upholsterer from on or about October 22, 2011, through December 9, 2016. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com BANK OF AMERICA: Wins OK of "Pastor" Suit Deal; Hearing Jan. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vince Chhabria grants preliminary approval to the Class Action Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties in the lawsuit titled Robert A. Pastor; Scott M. Van Horn; Regina M. Florence; and William E. Florence III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:15-cv-03831-VC (N.D. Cal.). The Settlement Class is certified and defined as: All persons with an address within the United States whose consumer credit report was obtained by BANA and/or FIA Card Services (FIA) for an Account Review Inquiry during the period August 21, 2010, through the Date of Preliminary Approval where the subject account relationship had terminated because any of the following criteria were met: (i) the debt on the account had been discharged in bankruptcy; (ii) the account was closed with a zero balance; or (iii) the account had been sold or transferred to a third party. Excluded from the Class are all current Bank of America employees, officers and directors, and the judge and magistrate presiding over this Action and their respective staff. The Court appoints Abbas Kazerounian, Esq., and Ryan McBride, Esq., of the Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Joshua B. Swigart, Esq., and David J. McGlothlin, Esq., of Hyde & Swigart as Class Counsel for purposes of settlement. The Court also approves the form and substance of the proposed notice procedure set forth in the Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the process set forth in the Agreement for submitting, reviewing, approving and paying all claims from the $1,645,000 Settlement Fund. Each Class Member that timely submits a claim will receive a pro-rata portion of the Settlement Fund. A hearing will be held on January 11, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final approval of the Agreement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L2wXZsAU BROTHERS MOTHERS: "Buckler" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN A. BUCKLER and LONDON MORTON, Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. BROTHERS, MOTHERS & OTHERS CORPORATION d/b/a CYPRESS GRILLE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00603 (W.D. Tex., July 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs arising from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Brothers, Mothers & Others Corporation, doing business as Cypress Grille, is a Texas corporation that conducts business in the state of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher McKinney, Esq. THE MCKINNEY LAW FIRM, P.C. 110 Broadway Street, Suite 420 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 832-0932 Facsimile: (210) 568-4101 E-mail: chris@themckinneylawfirm.com BURGER KING: Sued by Gesten Over FCRA Violations ------------------------------------------------ RYAN D. GESTEN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a BURGER KING, Case No. 1:17-cv-22541-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2017), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires it to truncate certain credit card information on receipts. Despite the clear language of the statute, and having been sued for the identical FACTA violation in the past, the Defendant once again willfully, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the statute, failed to comply with the FCRA, Mr. Gesten contends. Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation that does business under the fictitious name "Burger King(R)." The Defendant's principal address is in Miami, Florida. As of December 31, 2016, Burger King owns or franchises a total of 15,738 restaurants in more than 100 countries and the U.S. territories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312)726-1093 E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com CAPNIA INC: "Garfield" Class Action Settled and Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Capnia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al., has been settled and dismissed. The Company said, "On February 16, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al., Case No. C17-00284, or the Lawsuit, was filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa against us and certain of our officers and directors. The Lawsuit alleged, generally, that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by seeking to sell control of the company through an allegedly defective process, and on unfair terms. The Lawsuit also alleged that defendants failed to disclose all material facts concerning the merger with Essentialis to stockholders. The Lawsuit sought, among other things, equitable relief that would have enjoined the consummation of the merger, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On February 28, 2017, we settled the Lawsuit by making certain supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 28, 2017 in connection with the plaintiff's agreement to voluntarily dismiss plaintiff's claims in the Lawsuit. We also agreed to pay $175,000 in attorney's fees. This amount was accrued as a current liability on the balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 and recorded as a general and administrative expense on the statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. The stipulation of dismissal was approved by the court on April 14, 2017." CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Merger w/ Sabra Health Care ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELVYN KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CARE CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., RAYMOND J. LEWIS, DOUGLAS CROCKER II, JEFFREY A. MALEHORN, JOHN L. WORKMAN, JOHN S. GATES, JR., DALE A. REISS, RONALD G. GEARY, CARE CAPITAL PROPERTIES, LP, SABRA HEALTH CARE REIT, INC., PR SUB, LLC, and SABRA HEALTH CARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-00920-UNA (D. Del., July 10,2017), alleges that Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement that does not provide material information regarding a proposed agreement and plan of merger with Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc., PR Sub, LLC, and Sabra Health Care Limited Partnership. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Care Capital shareholders will receive 1.123 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Care Capital common stock. The Registration Statement allegedly fails to provide Plaintiff and the putative Class with (a) the Company's financial projections; (b) Sabra's financial projections, and (c) the financial analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisors in support of the fairness opinions. The Registration Statement also fails to provide material information regarding the potential conflicts of interest of the Company's financial advisors. Care Capital's business focuses on owning, acquiring, and leasing skilled nursing facilities and other healthcare assets operated by private regional and local care providers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Murray, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 778-4000 Fax: (302) 295-2873 Email: rernst@oelegal.com Email: dmurray@oelegal.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-983-1300 Fax: 212-983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com CARNIVAL CORP: Wins OK of "Charvat" Suit Deal; Hearing April 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on July 6, 2017, in the case entitled Philip Charvat v. Carnival Corporation & PLC, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05746 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. The minute entry states that Preliminary Approval hearing was held. After consideration of the parties' submissions and argument, Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties class action settlement is granted. Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, Approving Notice Plan and Setting Final Approving Hearing is entered. The motions at Docket Nos. [533], [526], [521], [519], and [492] are all denied without prejudice and may be reinstated if the Court ultimately fails to approve the class action settlement, says the ruling. Final approval hearing is set for April 4, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., in front of Judge Andrea R. Wood in Courtroom 1925 of the Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, in the United States Courthouse located at 219 Dearborn Street, in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Alp7HW44 CARRINGTON'S CARING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Agatha Thomas, Marie Edward, and Angel Dancil, individually and all others similarly situated v. Carrington's Caring Angels, LLC Stephanie Carrington, Ronshai Davis, Aaja Love Care, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-01586-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a home health care services company located at 9401 N 20th St, Tampa, FL 33612. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter L. Tragos, Esq. Peter A. Sartes, Esq. TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC 601 Cleveland Street Suite 800 Clearwater, FL 33755 Telephone: (727) 441-9030 Facsimile: (727 441-9254 E-mail: petertragos@greeklaw.com peter@greeklaw.com CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Providence Class Action Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Cemtrex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal related to the class action lawsuit by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, remains pending. On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange ("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged. The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to litigate the matter vigorously. CBOE Holdings, Inc. (CBOE Holdings or the Company) is the owner of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Bats exchanges, CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE) and other subsidiaries, is one of the world's largest exchange holding companies and a leader in providing global investors cutting-edge trading and investment solutions. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Expects Settlement to Conclude in Q3 2017 ------------------------------------------------------------ CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the parties expect that the comprehensive settlement of employee-related lawsuits will be concluded and each of these cases dismissed by the end of the third quarter of 2017. On October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly- situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. The parties participated in mediation in October 2016, but were unable to reach an agreement on settlement at that time, and trial was scheduled for June 6, 2017. After settlement discussions recommenced at a second mediation session beginning on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims. Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the Sinohui Litigation, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment. The parties will present their proposed class settlement to the Court for review and approval during the second quarter of 2017, and expect that the settlement will be concluded and the case dismissed by the end of 2017. The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. Since the Court in the Sinohui Litigation issued its order denying certification of a class of California-based general managers on misclassification and wage statement claims, six lawsuits have been filed against the Company in California state court (the "California General Manager Litigation"). The plaintiffs in these actions include nine current and 12 former California General Managers asserting individual misclassification, wage statement, and expense reimbursement claims. On December 20, 2016, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Heather Smith v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Smith Lawsuit"), and on December 21, 2016, CEC removed the Smith Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned cause number 2:16-cv-009452. On January 17, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Audrae Escobar, Christine Ortiz, and Debora Templeton v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Escobar Lawsuit"), and on January 18, 2017, CEC removed the Escobar Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned cause number 2:17-cv-00428. On February 2, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled James Funk, Salvador Hernandez, Jr., Heather Larsen, Erika Lopez, and Angela Sisson v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Funk Lawsuit"), and on the same date, CEC removed the Funk Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned cause number 3:17-cv-00214. On March 16, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Imelda Esqueda, Kelly Gutierrez, Doreen Montoya, and Dennis Lewis v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Esqueda Lawsuit"), and on the same date, CEC removed the Esqueda Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was assigned cause number 5:17-cv-00492-JLS. On March 24, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Elizabeth Ann Galassi, Desiree Johnson, Jack Lee, Nathan Reed, and Paul Reed v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Galassi Lawsuit"), and on the same date, CEC removed the Galassi Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was assigned cause number 3:17-cv-01608-SK. And on April 20, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled Curtis Harmon, Luis Luna, Derek Maguin, and Mindy Miller-Tyrell v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Harmon Lawsuit"); on April 21, 2017, CEC removed the Harmon Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was assigned cause number 3:17-cv-02232-SK. As part of the settlement reached by the parties in the Sinohui Litigation, the parties also agreed to settle the California General Manager Litigation. Pursuant to the basic terms of their comprehensive settlement, each of the Plaintiffs will grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he or she asserted or could have asserted against the Company based on the facts that gave rise to the California General Manager Litigation in exchange for the Company's settlement payments to each of them. The parties expect that the comprehensive settlement of these lawsuits will be concluded and each of these cases dismissed by the end of the third quarter of 2017. The settlement of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Aug. 25 Case Conference in "French" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case by former Technical Manager Kevin French. The Hon. Jon S. Tigar signed on July 3 a scheduling order providing that: -- Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings July 14, 2017; -- Case Management Statement due by Aug. 23, 2017; -- Telephonic Case Management Conference set for Aug. 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.; -- Class certification motion due Jan. 31, 2018; -- Class certification opposition March 30, 2018; -- Class certification reply May 15, 2018; -- Class Certification Hearing set for May 31, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. On March 2, 2017, Mr. French filed an amended complaint. An Initial Case Management Conference was continued to May 17. On April 26, the case was reassigned to the Hon. Jon S. Tigar for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu was removed from the case. The Company filed its answer to the Amended Complaint. An Initial Case Management Conference was set for June 28. On June 21, an ADR Certification related to the discussion of ADR options by Defendant CEC was filed. On June 27, a Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR was filed by CEC and Mr. French. On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse for certain business expenses, including for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in violation of the California Labor Code and federal law. "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination on the Company's potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is unsuccessful," the Company said. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Trial Not Yet Scheduled in Merger Suit --------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the Company is awaiting the District Court's decision whether to accept the Special Master's recommendation in the merger-related litigation. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the "Consolidated Class Action Petition"). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be dismissed in its entirety. On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's report and recommendation with the Kansas court and separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the complaint as to Goldman Sachs. "We currently await the District Court's decision whether to accept the Special Master's recommendation. The Court has not yet set this case for trial," the Company said. "The Company continues to believe the Consolidated Class Action Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Peter Piper Litigation Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the motion to dismiss the Peter Piper, Inc. Litigation remains pending. On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division (the "Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on December 22, 2016. On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the Jacobson Litigation pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that presents an issue for decision that is relevant to the Peter Piper's motion to dismiss. "We believe Peter Piper has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and, should the Court overrule the motion to dismiss, we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination on Peter Piper's potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is unsuccessful," the Company said. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CEMTREX INC: Defending Against 3 Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------- Cemtrex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is aware of three alleged securities class action complaints filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, these three alleged class actions, as well as any further related actions, will be consolidated into a single lawsuit following decisions on motions to consolidate filed with the Court on April 25, 2017. The allegations in the three complaints are based on the assertions contained in a blog post published on an internet website that challenged various aspects of the Company's stock trading and relationships. The Company denies these assertions, and filed a lawsuit seeking damages of $170 million against the blogger on March 4, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company believes the alleged class action litigation is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company has retained Lane Powell PC, a national securities class action defense law firm with no previous relationship to the Company, to defend the litigation, and intends to seek dismissal of the litigation at the earliest possible stage. Cemtrex provides manufacturing services of advanced electronic system assemblies, provides broad-based industrial services instruments and emission monitors for industrial processes, and provides industrial air filtration and environmental control systems. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Final Approval of "Brown" Case Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10- Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2017, that the Company is awaiting final court approval of the settlement agreement of the "Brown" class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278). "By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014- 00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior Court. "On June 27, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 described below may be related. The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments. On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court, alleging that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements as set forth in the California Labor Code. On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in addition to other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091). The Company said, "On April 18, 2016, the court granted our motion to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's wage statement claim and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual arbitration. On June 28, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620 may be related. "On September 6, 2016, the parties engaged in settlement discussion and reached agreement on the terms of a final settlement agreement. On February 21, 2017, the court granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, and preliminarily enjoined the plaintiffs in Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and 37-2014-00040278 from prosecuting any claims released in Case No. CIV1504091. The final settlement agreement will be subject to final court approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of Case No. CIV150491 and a partial resolution of cases Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620. Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement. "On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620). On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference statement at which time we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments." Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment of the restaurant industry. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends "Guglielmo" Suit -------------------------------------------------- The case, Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al., remains pending, The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2017. On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 2:15-CV-03117). On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt- in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action at a limited number of the Company's restaurants in the State of New York. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment of the restaurant industry. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2017, that the parties in the case, Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., are awaiting the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss. On April 24, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that the Company violated the New York deceptive business practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuities on split payment checks (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. 2:16-cv-02006-JFB-AKT). The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary payments. On September 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. On October 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to limit the scope of the complaint to the State of New York only. The parties are waiting for a ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment of the restaurant industry. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Says Muransky, Tibbits & Zhang Suits Related ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2017, that the Company to seek consolidation of the Muransky, Tibbits and Zhang lawsuits. On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, by failing to properly censor consumer credit or debit card information. (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM). On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional lawsuits were filed in California and New York, respectively, alleging similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM. (Tibbits v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 ( E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No 8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)). The lawsuits seek unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary payments. "We intend to vigorously defend these actions. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these matters and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. On February 3, 2017, five present and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. (Abdelaziz v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37- 2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL). The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments. The Company will notify the courts that Case Nos. 0:17-cv-60229- JEM, 1:17-cv-00968, and 8:17-cv-00357 are related and will seek to consolidate all related cases in a single venue. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment of the restaurant industry. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Against "Rodriguez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al. On February 22, 2017, a group of present and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, furnish proper wage statements, and maintain accurate payroll records, among other claims. (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL). The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future payments. Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment of the restaurant industry. CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Motions for Summary Disposition Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, the Defendants' motions for summary disposition seeking dismissal of all claims with prejudice, remain pending. On February 22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan by individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer. The actions are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016 151641-CB. These complaints purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of Talmer against the individual defendants, and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Talmer and Chemical. The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of Talmer breached their fiduciary duties to Talmer's shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that undervalues Talmer and includes preclusive deal protection provisions, and that Chemical allegedly aided and abetted the Talmer directors in breaching their duties to Talmer's shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual defendants have been unjustly enriched. Both complaints seek various remedies on behalf of the putative class (consisting of all shareholders of Talmer who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant). They request, among other things, that the Court enjoin the merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, direct the Talmer directors to exercise their fiduciary duties, rescind the merger agreement to the extent that it is already implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper. The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21, 2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW") served as a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an alleged conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material information about the proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. These two cases were consolidated as In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB, per an order entered on May 12, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs in this consolidated action again amended their complaint, adding additional factual allegations, adding KBW as a defendant, and asserting that KBW acted in concert with Chemical to aid and abet breaches of fiduciary duty by Talmer's directors. The Defendants have all filed motions for summary disposition seeking dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and those motions remain pending. Talmer, Chemical, KBW and the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in the consolidated action are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these consolidated lawsuits. Livonia Suit in E.D. Michigan Remains Stayed Chemical Financial also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., remains stayed until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings on motions for summary disposition that are now pending in In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation. On June 16, 2016, the same putative class plaintiff that filed the City of Livonia state court action filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229. The plaintiff purports to bring this action "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," and requests certification as a class action. The Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges, among other things, that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction unless and until additional information is provided to Talmer's shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the Court grant such other relief as it deems just and proper. Talmer, Chemical, and the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On October 18, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order staying this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings on motions for summary disposition that are now pending in In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB. The stay order requires the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order or closing documents, as appropriate, within thirty days after the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings on the pending motions for summary disposition. CLECO CORPORATE: Appeal in Merger Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs' appeal in a merger-related class action remains pending. In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and Cleco Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co- lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014- 11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition. This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A hearing was held on September 15, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal on November 9, 2016. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued a schedule requiring plaintiffs to file their brief on April 18, 2017, with Cleco's brief due on May 4, 2017. The plaintiffs have requested an extension of the briefing schedule. Cleco anticipates the plaintiffs' brief would be due on May 18, 2017, with Cleco's brief being due on June 7, 2017, pending any requests for extension. COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Long" Suit Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Tami Long v. Covenant Transport, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-00278 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Travis R Mcdonough on April 28, 2017, entered an order granting a Motion for Settlement. Following settlement approval, the case was terminated. Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Covenant Transport, Inc. ("Covenant Transport") is a defendant in a lawsuit that was filed on August 17, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County. This lawsuit arises out of the work performed by the plaintiff as a company driver for Covenant Transport during the period of August, 2013 through October, 2014. The plaintiff is seeking class action certification under the complaint. The case was removed from state court in September, 2015 to the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and subsequently, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee on October 5, 2015 where the case is now pending. The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit is "the four (4) years prior to the filing of this action through the trial date" and alleges claims for failure to properly pay for rest breaks, inspection time, waiting time, fueling and paperwork time, meal periods and other related wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code. The parties engaged in mediation of the dispute which resulted in a comprehensive settlement of all class member claims upon payment of $500,000 by Covenant Transport, which includes any claims relating to payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The settlement received preliminary court approval in December, 2016. Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party logistics providers that require a high level of service to support their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload customers such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage shippers. COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Subsidiary Still Faces "Bass" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Transportation Group, Inc.'s SRT subsidiary continues to defend a class action lawsuit by David Bass, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company said, "Our SRT subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on December 16, 2016 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bass (a California resident and former driver), who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action case wherein he alleges violation of multiple California wage and hour statutes over a four year period of time, including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide meal periods and paid rest breaks, failure to pay for rest and recovery periods, failure to reimburse certain business expenses, failure to pay vested vacation, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful competition." Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party logistics providers that require a high level of service to support their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload customers such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage shippers. CVB FINANCIAL: Approval of Wage-Hour Accord Expected in Q3 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------- CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement of a wage-hour suit is subject to court approval. The Company said, "A purported shareholder class action complaint alleging securities law violations captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al. was filed on August 23, 2010, Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer). On March 13, 2017, the previously-announced settlement of the Lloyd action and other consolidated cases based on the same set of facts, received final court approval and the matters are no longer pending against the Company. The settlement costs were funded solely with insurance proceeds." Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.cvbsecuritiessettlement.com/ "The Company is also involved in several related actions entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, and Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company's "exempt" and "non-exempt" hourly employees. These cases, which were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2015, are styled as putative class action lawsuits and allege, among other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain employees and managers as "exempt" employees, (ii) the Company violated California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices. Subsequently, related cases were filed by the same law firm representing Morgan and Osuna in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging (1) violations of the Labor Code and seeking penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 and (2) seeking a declaratory judgment that certain releases signed by CBB employees were invalid. "On November 28, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principal to settle all of the related wage and hour class action lawsuits ("Wage-Hour Settlement"). Plaintiffs will dismiss all their lawsuits with prejudice in exchange for the payment of $1,500,000 to the putative class members, after attorneys' fees and costs. As of March 31, 2017, the Company maintained a litigation accrual of $1.5 million for the Wage-Hour Settlement. The Wage-Hour Settlement is subject to court approval. The parties are preparing the Wage-Hour Settlement documents and will seek preliminary approval from the court during the second quarter of 2017. We anticipate that the Wage-Hour Settlement will be concluded sometime in the third quarter of 2017." The Company's primary operations are related to traditional banking activities. CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------- CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation remains pending. The company said, "On July 25 and 29, 2016, nearly identical class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, titled Crihfield v. CytRx Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05519 and Dorce v. CytRx Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-05666 alleging that we and certain of our officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failing to disclose material adverse facts to the effect that the clinical hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study, thus requiring further analysis, which could cause the trial's results and/or FDA approval to be materially adversely affected or delayed." "The plaintiffs allege that such wrongful acts and omissions caused significant losses and damages to a class of persons and entities that acquired our securities between November 18, 2014 and July 11, 2016, and seek an award of compensatory damages, costs and expenses including counsel and expert fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper." On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an Order consolidating the actions titled In re: CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 16-cv-05519-SJO and appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Following the filing of a first amended complaint on January 13, 2017, on March 14, 2017 the Company and the individual defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed an Opposition thereto on April 28, 2017. The Company and the individual defendants will file a Reply on May 30, 2017 and the matter was set to be heard by the Court on June 12, 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. CytRx has directors' and officers' liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities the Company may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. These claims are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management's view of these matters may change in the future. CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in oncology. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in "Weinstat" Case Pending -------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company still defends the appeal in the case filed by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint sought a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The certified class is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Center City Periodontists Case Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is awaiting a ruling on the class certification motion in the case filed by Center City Periodontists. On December 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin, DDS, filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California filed this case. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from alleged misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because the Company cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water through the device. The Court granted the Company's Motion for Dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Following that dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations. The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action and the Company objected. The Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim. The Court subsequently denied the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the express warranty claim. The Court held hearings during 2016 on plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court has not scheduled further hearings in the matter and the Company is awaiting a ruling on the class certification motion by the Court. DRUG DEPOT: Fauley Moves to Certify Two Classes Over Sent Faxes --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHAUN FAULEY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons v. DRUG DEPOT, INC. a/k/a APS PHARMACY and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-10735 (N.D. Ill.), seeks an order certifying these classes: Class A All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax stating, "APS Pharmacy," and containing the phrase "Fax Order To: (727) 785-2502," on July 22, 2013, and on September 30, 2013. Class B All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax stating, "APS Pharmacy," and containing the phrase "Fax Order To: (727) 785-2502," on February 27, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 30, 2012, June 4, 2012, August 20, 2012, January 25, 2013, February 11, 2013, February 18, 2013, February 28, 2013, March 25, 2013, March 26, 2013, March 27, 2013, March 28, 2013, March 29, 2013, May 14, 2013, June 24, 2013, July 1, 2013, July 22, 2013, August 5, 2013, September 30, 2013, March 18, 2014, August 8, 2014, April 27, 2015. The case arises out the Defendant's fax broadcast allegedly advertising the availability and quality of APS's pharmaceutical products and services. The broadcasts, conducted between February 2012 and April 2015, successfully sent 78,536 facsimile advertisements in 23 separate broadcasts, using "fax broadcaster" ProFax Inc., the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing the Plaintiff as class representative and appointing the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j9kINlqM The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com EBIX INC: Discovery Underway in Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------ Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is on-going in a stockholder litigation. Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS. On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement dated June 19, 2013. After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's Motion to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims. On September 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum Opinion. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order. On October 25, 2016, the Court entered an Order permitting Lead Plaintiffs to file a Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint, which made additional claims and added two directors as defendants. The Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint was then filed on October 26, 2016. The claims are as follows: (i) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty for improperly maintaining the ABA as an unreasonable anti-takeover device; (ii) a purported class claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the Company's 2010 Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iii) a purported derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty to the Company in causing incentive compensation to be awarded under the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iv) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty in adopting certain bylaw amendments on December 19, 2014; (v) a purported class and derivative claim seeking invalidation of the December 19, 2014 bylaw amendments under Delaware law; (vi) a purported claim for breach of fiduciary duty for not duly adopting the ABA at the July 15, 2009 Board meeting, and seeking declaratory relief invalidating the ABA; (vii) a purported claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the ABA, and seeking declaratory relief invalidating the ABA; (viii) a purported claim seeking invalidation of the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, 2008 Certificate Amendment, 2008 Stock Split and subsequent corporate actions; and, (ix) a purported class claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking declaratory relief invalidating the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan because of incomplete disclosures with respect to the ABA. Lead Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the ABA, the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, the bylaw amendments, the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, the 2008 Certificate Amendment, the 2008 Stock Split, and the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan. Lead Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 31. 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On November 1, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on Claims (ii), (iii), and (vi) as described above. The directors added as defendants in the Third Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint moved to dismiss all Claims against them. The remaining Defendants moved to dismiss Claims (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), and (ix) as described above, and have filed answers to the other claims in the Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Complaint. Briefing schedules for the pending motions have not been yet set and discovery is on-going. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend the action vigorously. Ebix, Inc. and subsidiaries is an international supplier of on- demand software and e-commerce solutions to the insurance, healthcare and financial industries, as well as e-governance solutions to governmental agencies in the health and education sectors. EXPRESS RECOVERY: Accused by "Alonso" Suit of Violating FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ALONSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EXPRESS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv- 00116-PMW (D. Utah, July 7, 2017), is brought for damages, injunctive relief and other remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant with regard to its attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Express Recovery Services, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in Utah. The Defendant, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of themselves or others, engages in debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theron D. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON + MURFF 290 25th Street, Suite #102 Ogden, UT 84401 Telephone: (801) 392-9324 Facsimile: (801) 337-2087 E-mail: theron@morrisonmurff.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Court Narrows Claims in "Letizia" ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned THOMAS LETIZIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv- 06232-THE (N.D. Calif.). Plaintiffs allege Facebook's misrepresentations induced them to purchase the video advertisement because they wanted accurate video advertising metrics regarding [ADVV] and [APVV] so that they could monitor their video advertisements' performance. Plaintiffs also allege Facebook's misrepresentations induced them to continue purchasing video advertisements, to "purchase additional video advertisements" and to pay more for Facebook video advertising than they would otherwise have been willing to pay." Lastly, Plaintiffs allege Facebook's misrepresentations: artificially increased the price of Facebook video advertising, provided Facebook with an unfair competitive advantage over other online video advertising platforms, and interfered with Plaintiffs' attempts to utilize Facebook's video advertising analytics and to run effective video advertising campaigns. Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (1) a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, (2) a breach of an implied duty to perform with reasonable care, and (3)a quasi-contract claim for restitution. The Court: 1. grants Facebook's request for judicial notice of Facebook's contractual documents; 2. denies Facebook's request for judicial notice of the Facebook post of David Fischer, Facebook's Vice President of Business and Marketing Partnerships; 3. grants Facebook's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL claim without prejudice. As Facebook correctly points out, Plaintiffs never state in their complaint that they ever saw the miscalculated metrics. To adequately allege reliance, a plaintiff must still at a minimum allege that he saw the representation at issue. 4. grants Facebook's request for injunctive relief without prejudice. Plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the Plaintiffs are currently purchasing video advertisements from Facebook or that any of them intend to do so in the future. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to show a "real or immediate" threat of future injury. Where a plaintiff has no intention of purchasing the product in the future, a majority of district courts have held that the plaintiff has no standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The Court grants Facebook's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. 5. denies Facebook's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied duty to perform with reasonable care. Here, Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleges that Facebook regularly provided the Plaintiffs with advertising metrics, including the ADVV and APVV metrics. And Facebook concedes that it did in fact provide purchasers of video advertisement with advertising metrics. Facebook began providing its video advertisers with video metrics. During oral arguments, Facebook contended these metrics were provided for free, as a complementary service. Plaintiffs' implied-duty claim survives Facebook's motion to dismiss. California case law recognizes that course of performance evidence is allowed to explain or supplement integrated contracts even when the contract is unambiguous. Here, there is no doubt that Facebook had been providing advertising metrics to Plaintiffs as part of its advertising services. This course of performance sufficiently supports Plaintiffs' implied duty claim. And under California law, implied duties may be required to be performed with reasonable care. 6. grants Facebook's motion to dismiss quasi-contract claim with prejudice. Facebook argues Plaintiffs' quasi-contract claim should be dismissed because there is an enforceable contract in the record that covers the subject matter of Plaintiffs' unjust- enrichment claim. Facebook is correct on this issue. The mere fact that Facebook's contracts do not expressly mention the two advertising metrics at issue here does not mean the contract does not govern the subject matter at issue here, Facebook's advertising services. In addition, Plaintiffs conceded during oral arguments that they "do believe that the advertising services that are part of [the parties'] contract include performance metrics. Plaintiffs may amend all claims dismissed without prejudice no later than August 14, 2017. Failure to file timely amendment will lead to dismissal of these claims with prejudice. A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/G8ywZ4 from Leagle.com. Thomas Letizia, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, 1401 Willow Pass Rd., Ste. 880, Concord, CA 94520 Thomas Letizia, Plaintiff, represented by Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. 400 S. 7th St., Suite 400, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone (702) 450-5400 Mark Fierro, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. Greg Agustin, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. Tyler Barnett PR, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. Randy Sutton, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. Tony Felice PR, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. The Abbi Agency, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. LLE One, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Aaron Blumenthal, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Charles Philip Reichmann, Law Offices of Charles Reichmann, Dylan Hughes, Girard Law Group LLP, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. Quirky, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Aaron Blumenthal, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Andrew N. Friedman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Charles Philip Reichmann, Law Offices of Charles Reichmann, David K. Stein, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Law Group LLP, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael B. Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Wink, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Aaron Blumenthal -- ab@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Andrew N. Friedman -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Charles Philip Reichmann -- cpreichmann@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Charles Reichmann, David K. Stein, -- dstein@bricker.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Dylan Hughes dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Law Group LLP, Eric Alfred Kafka -- ekafka@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Geoffrey Aaron Graber -- ggraber@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael B. Eisenkraft -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Facebook Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashok Ramani -- aramani@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Briggs James Matheson -- bmatheson@keker.com --- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey -- emccloskey@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Ian Asher Kanig, -- ikanig@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Michelle Sabrina Ybarra -- mybarra@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Paven Malhotra-- pmalhotra@keker.com --- Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP FARMER BROS: Still Faces Hernandez and Zuno Cases ------------------------------------------------- Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co., Superior Court of State of California, County of Los Angeles. On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single cause of action for unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses. Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to establish sub-classes as appropriate. On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative, Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court has related this case to the Hernandez case. On November 17, 2015, the unified case was assigned to a judge, and this judge ordered the stay on discovery to remain intact until after a decision on the Company's demurrer action. The plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and, in response, on January 5, 2016, the Company filed a reply to this Opposition to the Demurrer. On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer and found in the Company's favor, sustaining the demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend as to the plaintiff Hernandez, and so dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related putative class. Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at this time. The Company provided responses to discovery following a lift by the Court of the stay on discovery. Responses to plaintiff's first set of written and document discovery were filed on October 31, 2016. Following an October 31, 2016 hearing on a motion to compel and for sanctions against plaintiff and counsel for failing to appear for deposition, the Court granted the Company's motion, ruling that all of plaintiff's objections to the deposition notice were waived and ordered payment to the Company of $2,828 in sanctions. Depositions and written discovery proceeded from December 2016 through the first calendar quarter of 2017. A case management conference occurred on January 26, 2017, and a further case management conference was scheduled for June 7, 2017 to determine whether Zuno intends to move forward as a purported class action or on an individual basis only. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter. Farmer Bros is a national coffee roaster, wholesaler and distributor of coffee, tea and culinary products manufactured under supply agreements, under the Company's owned brands, as well as under private labels on behalf of certain customers. FASHION NOVA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure Properly Pay Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, Inc., Richard Saghian, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC667265 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide mandated timely meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages due and owing, and failure to issue accurate wage statements to employees in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate an online fashion store for women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Alfredo Nava, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 650 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 496-4818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com alfredo@crosnerlegal.com FEMALE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Female Health Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a merger-related class action. On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy to diversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a single product company, the Company completed the Merger with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. APP is a company focused on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical and consumer health products for men's and women's health and oncology. For men, product and product candidates are in the areas of benign prostatic hyperplasia, male infertility, amelioration of side effects of hormonal prostate cancer therapies, gout, sexual dysfunction, and prostate cancer. For women, product candidates are for advanced breast and ovarian cancers and for female sexual health. The APP Merger was pursuant to an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 31, 2016, (the Amended Merger Agreement), among the Company, APP, and the Company's wholly owned subsidiary Blue Hen Acquisition, Inc. (APP Merger Sub). Pursuant to the Amended Merger Agreement, on October 31, 2016, APP became a wholly-owned subsidiary of FHC through the merger of APP Merger Sub with and into APP with APP continuing as the surviving corporation. Consummation of the APP Merger did not require the current approval of FHC's shareholders. In connection with the APP Merger, two purported derivative and class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which were captioned Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH- 13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488. On January 9, 2017 these two lawsuits were consolidated. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP Merger and the members of the Company's board of directors after the closing of the APP Merger. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted such breaches, by consummating the APP Merger in violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting requirements and by causing the Company to issue the shares of its common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the former stockholders of APP pursuant to the APP Merger in order to evade the voting requirements of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law. The consolidated complaint also alleges that Mitchell S. Steiner, a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a co-founder of APP, and Harry Fisch, a director of the Company and a co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in receiving shares of Common Stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock in the APP Merger. Based on these allegations, the consolidated complaint seeks equitable relief, including rescission of the APP Merger, money damages, disgorgement of the shares of the Company's common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner and Dr. Fisch, and costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys' fees. The Company believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously defending itself. The Female Health Company is a pharmaceutical and medical device company, with an initial focus on the development and commercialization of pharmaceuticals for men's and women's health and oncology that qualify for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approval pathway as well as the 505 (b)(1) pathway. The Company also has a Consumer Health and Medical Devices Division and Global Public Health Sector Division. The Company does business as both "Veru Healthcare" and "The Female Health Company." FIDELITY INFORMATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Herbert Richards, Jr., on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Fidelity Information Services, LLC, and FIS Management Services, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01577-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a business that provides banking and payment technologies in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-8171 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss "Raul" Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Raul v. Highlander, et al, remains pending. The Company as successor to First Clover Leaf, certain former executive officers of First Clover Leaf, and certain former members of First Clover Leaf's board of directors, and the Company are named as defendants in one purported class action lawsuit brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf stockholder challenging the merger of First Clover Leaf into the Company (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al , Case No. 16- L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District. The Lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual officers and directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the process leading to the merger of First Clover Leaf and the Company. The Lawsuit alleges that the merger consideration was inadequate and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus did not contain sufficient disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also alleges that First Clover Leaf and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants. The relief sought includes class certification, rescission of the merger and damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company and the individual defendants believe that the factual allegations in the Lawsuit are without merit and legally unfounded. They have moved to dismiss the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against these allegations. FIRST TRINITY: Class Suit over Insurance Product Pending -------------------------------------------------------- First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit related to "Decreasing Term to 95" insurance products. First Trinity Financial Corporation (the "Company" or "FTFC") is the parent holding company of Trinity Life Insurance Company ("TLIC"), Family Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") and First Trinity Capital Corporation ("FTCC"). The Company was incorporated in Oklahoma on April 19, 2004, for the primary purpose of organizing a life insurance subsidiary. Prior to its acquisition by TLIC, FBLIC developed, marketed, and sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95" policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and therefore was not providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies the same as that provided during the first year of coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in premium. The main difference between the original Petition and the amended Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95 years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law, specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums collected under these policies. In addition, as part of the MMPA claim, plaintiffs are now alleging that FBLIC undertook a fraudulent scheme to sell the Decreasing Term to 95 policies as a level premium for level benefit even though FBLIC never intended to pay dividends for the life of the policies and that part of this alleged fraudulent scheme included having a dividend option which is not allowed under Missouri law. FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will continue to defend against them. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification. On July 21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain the claims for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, violation of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for permission to appeal the Court's class certification. The Petition for Leave to Appeal was denied. FBLIC intends to defend vigorously against the class and individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive action. On May 13, 2015, FBLIC filed a Counterclaim against Doyle Nimmo seeking indemnity and seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty in the event FBLIC is liable under Plaintiffs' underlying claims. In addition, on April 29, 2015, TLIC filed a lawsuit against Doyle Nimmo and Michael Teel alleging that they were liable for violations of federal and state securities laws for failing to disclose information relating to the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. This lawsuit is currently pending in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri (hereinafter the "Federal Lawsuit"). No claims have been made against TLIC in the Federal Lawsuit. The Federal Lawsuit has been stayed pending resolution of the lawsuit against FBLIC in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri. On September 28, 2015, Doyle Nimmo filed a Third-Party Petition for Declaratory Judgment (and Other Relief) against FBLIC. In this Third-Party Petition, Doyle Nimmo, a former director for FBLIC, seeks a declaratory judgment that the corporate by-laws of FBLIC require FBLIC to indemnify him for attorney's fees, judgments, costs, fines, and amounts paid in defense of both the Counterclaim and the Federal Lawsuit and seeks a monetary judgment for the amounts expended by Doyle Nimmo in such defense. Prior to Doyle Nimmo's filing of the Third-Party Petition, FBLIC's Board of Directors executed a Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of a Special Meeting in which it denied Doyle Nimmo's tender of defense and request for indemnification finding Mr. Nimmo did not meet the applicable standard of conduct for indemnification under Missouri law. FBLIC intends to vigorously defend the Third-Party Petition on these grounds. The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the claims in the event Doyle Nimmo prevails on his Third-Party Petition. As stated above, FBLIC filed a Counterclaim and TLIC filed the Federal Lawsuit against Doyle Nimmo. Doyle Nimmo submitted a claim and tendered the defense of these claims to Utica Mutual Insurance Company under a policy providing Insurance Agents and Brokers Errors and Omissions Liability coverage. On November 4, 2015, Utica Mutual Insurance Company filed a lawsuit against Doyle Nimmo and other interested parties, including FBLIC and TLIC. The lawsuit is pending in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri and asks the Court to determine whether the Errors and Omissions policy provides coverage for the lawsuits filed against Doyle Nimmo. Utica Mutual Insurance Company does not seek a monetary judgment against FBLIC or TLIC. All parties to the lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri agreed to waive their right to a trial by jury and have all claims submitted to the Judge for decision. The trial in that case is scheduled to begin on November 27, 2017. Guaranty fund assessments, brought about by the insolvency of life and health insurers, are levied at the discretion of the various state guaranty fund associations to cover association obligations. In most states, guaranty fund assessments may be taken as a credit against premium taxes, typically over a five-year period. GAS NATURAL: Settlement in "Masters" Case Approved -------------------------------------------------- In the case, Masters v. Bender et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02880 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Patricia A Gaughan entered a final order and judgment approving the Unopposed Motion Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiff Alison D Masters. Accordingly, the case was terminated effective July 5. Gas Natural Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that, "On November 3, 2016, a putative derivative and class action lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case Number CV16871400, captioned Alison D. "Sunny" Masters vs. Michael B. Bender et. al., naming our board of directors, James E. Sprague (our chief financial officer), Kevin J. Degenstein (our chief operating officer), Jennifer Haberman (our corporate controller), Jed D. Henthorne (our former corporate controller and currently president of our Energy West Montana subsidiary), Vincent A. Parisi (our former general counsel), Parent, Merger Sub, First Reserve, Anita G. Zucker, individually, the Article 6 Marital Trust, Under the First Amended and Restated Jerry Zucker Revocable Trust dated April 2, 2007, InterTech, NIL Funding, as defendants, and us, as a nominal defendant. NIL Funding is an affiliate of InterTech. The chairperson and chief executive officer of InterTech, Anita G. Zucker, beneficially owns nearly 10% of our outstanding stock through the Zucker Trust. Two members of our board of directors, Mr. Bender and Mr. Johnston, currently serve as officers of InterTech." "The complaint (as amended) alleges, among other things, that (i) our board breached its fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith by failing to undertake an adequate sales process during the time leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, (ii) our officers violated their fiduciary duty of loyalty, (iii) the Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protection devices, (iv) our board failed to act with due care, loyalty, good faith, and independence owed to our shareholders, (v) that our executive officers, board members, InterTech, NIL Funding, and First Reserve conspired and aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties, and (vi) that our board breached their fiduciary duties and violated related federal securities laws by omitting and misrepresenting material information in our preliminary proxy statement filed on November 9, 2016. The complaint further alleges various claims against the Zucker Trust and First Reserve including, as applicable, claims for breach of fiduciary duties, violations of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13d-2(a). "On November 28, 2016, all defendants removed the Masters Case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case Number 1:16-CV-02880. We agreed to provide expedited discovery to the plaintiff. On December 23, 2016, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the Masters case. In the Memorandum of Understanding, we agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on November 23, 2016, solely for the purpose of minimizing the time, burden, and expense of litigation. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that, in exchange for making these disclosures, defendants will receive, after notice to potential class members and upon court approval, a customary release of claims relating to the Merger. On December 23, 2016, we filed with the SEC a Form 8-K making supplemental disclosures to our definitive proxy statement. On March 7, 2017, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding. On March 13, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a fairness hearing on July 5, 2017. "On October 8, 2016, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among us, FR Bison Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and FR Bison Merger Sub, Inc., an Ohio corporation ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into us (the "Merger"), on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. We will continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and Parent will pay to our shareholders $13.10 per common share in cash, without interest (the "Merger Consideration"), in accordance with and subject to the terms of the Merger Agreement. Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of First Reserve and were formed by First Reserve in order to facilitate the Merger." Gas Natural is a natural gas company, primarily operating local distribution companies in four states and serving approximately 69,700 customers as of March 31, 2017. GC SERVICES: "Frand" Consumer Lawsuit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME FRAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04095-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2017), was filed on behalf of a class of New York consumers seeking redress for Defendant's illegal practices, in connection with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case alleges, among others, that Defendant's communication to Plaintiff to collect debt fails to disclose information required by law. Defendant is a collection agency with its principal office located in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2F Brooklyn, NY 11223 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: Jmizrahilaw@gmail.com GENVEC INC: MOU Reached in Stockholder Actions ---------------------------------------------- GenVec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties to the stockholder litigation have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. On March 28, 2017 and April 6, 2017, putative stockholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware styled, respectively, Parshall v. GenVec, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00338 (D.Del.) and Mussman v. GenVec, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-mc-09999 (D.Del.). Additionally, on April 10, 2017 and April 25, 2017, actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland styled, respectively Hoose v. GenVec, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00987, and Pillai v. GenVec, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01143 (together with the Parshall and Mussman actions, the "Stockholder Actions"). The Stockholder Actions assert claims against GenVec and members of GenVec's board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"). The Parshall action also named, and the Hoose action purports to name, Intrexon and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints in the Stockholder Actions allege that GenVec and the Individual Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose in the draft proxy statement included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Intrexon on March 17, 2017 in connection with the Merger certain information regarding alleged potential conflicts of interest, events leading up to the signing of the merger agreement with Intrexon and Merger Sub, certain financial data regarding GenVec, and certain inputs regarding Roth Capital Partners' fairness opinion. The complaints in the Stockholder Actions also allege the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as control persons who had the ability to prevent the Registration Statement from being false and misleading. The Parshall and Hoose actions also allege that Intrexon and Merger Sub violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The actions seek, among other things, an injunction preventing consummation of the merger with Merger Sub, an award of damages, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On April 19, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Parshall and Mussman actions voluntarily dismissed their claims. On April 25, 2017, the plaintiff in the Hoose action filed a pre-motion letter advising the court of his intention to file a motion for preliminary injunctive relief (the "April 25 Letter"). On May 4, 2017, the Hoose and Pillai actions were consolidated for all purposes. On May 2, 2017, the parties to the Stockholder Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that calls for, among other things: (1) certain additional disclosures to be included in the proxy statement mailed to GenVec stockholders; (2) the withdrawal of the April 25 Letter in the Hoose action; and (3) dismissal of the Hoose and Pillai actions immediately following the vote by GenVec stockholders on the Merger. On May 4, 2017, in accordance with the MOU, the plaintiffs in the Hoose and Pillai actions advised the Court of the MOU, filed stipulations seeking to stay those actions and withdrew the April 25 Letter. GenVec and the Individual Defendants believe the Hoose and Pillai actions are without merit and, if those actions are not voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the MOU, intend to vigorously defend them. GenVec and the Individual Defendants agreed to make the additional disclosures that are the subject of the MOU to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further litigation. GenVec is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with an entrepreneurial focus on leveraging its proprietary AdenoVerse(TM) gene delivery platform to develop a pipeline of cutting-edge therapeutics and vaccines. GOSMITH INC: "Rojas" Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------- William Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gosmith, Inc. and Does 1-20, Case No. 2:17-cv-00281 (N.D. Ind., June 30, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending, through its agents, sales, solicitation and other telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call and internal do-no-call provisions of 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c) and, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Gosmith, Inc. is engaged in the marketing and sale of a service that connects individual homeowners with businesses that provide home improvement, home repair, landscaping, cleaning, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 212-4355 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid for Conditional Cert in "Clinton" OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, issued an Order sustaining Plaintiff's objection to a magistrate's report and recommendation in the case captioned BRANDY CLINTON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:16cv430 (E.D. Va.). Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action against Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Certification and for Equitable Tolling, seeking conditional certification of a collective class action, and they request judicial notice of the lawsuit to all collective action members. Plaintiffs also move the Court to equitably toll the statute of limitations applicable to the claims of putative opt-in plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Certification and for Equitable Tolling was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for disposition. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion be denied. Plaintiffs filed objections, arguing primarily that the R&R did not apply the proper lenient standard of review applicable at this stage in the litigation. Plaintiffs are/were paid on a salary basis, and they allege that they regularly worked more than forty hours per week. Plaintiffs claim that GEICO classified them improperly as exempt under the FLSA for having the ability to exercise judgment, and as a result, they were wrongly denied overtime compensation. Section 216(b) of the FLSA provides for collective action proceedings, whereby a party may proceed for and in behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated. This action is at the first stage, the conditional certification stage. The Court applies the fairly lenient standard at this stage. The primary focus in this inquiry is whether the potential plaintiffs are 'similarly situated with respect to the legal and, to a lesser extent, the factual issues to be determined. Plaintiffs also sufficiently allege that they have similar job requirements and are subject to similar pay provisions to establish that they are similarly situated for the purpose of step one analysis. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden. Plaintiffs have raised similar legal issues regarding the exemption of overtime arising from GEICO's policy that TCRs fall under the administrative exemption to the FLSA. The Court, likewise, concludes that Plaintiffs are similarly situated for the limited purpose of conditional certification because they were subject to the same policy of being denied overtime compensation, and because they have alleged that TCR Is and Us share similar job requirements and pay provisions. Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R are sustained. Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Certification and for Equitable Tolling is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. The R&R is Adopted as it pertains to equitable tolling. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/7JX88A from Leagle.com. Brandy Clinton, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, --bwrigley@reidervin.com -- Ervin Jewett, P.C. Brandy Clinton, Plaintiff, represented by Harris Dewey Butler, III -- harris.butler@butlerroyals.com -- Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett -- jjewett@ervinjewett.com -- Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, --rhervin@reidervin.com -- Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell --: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com -- Butler Royals PLC. Helen Kaplan, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Marilyn Harvey, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Ranysha L. Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Nicole Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Kristina Vinson, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Lasheena Weatherly, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Rachael Foglesong, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Veronica Rueda, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Tara Tate, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Khia Moon, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Doreen B. Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC. Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Sharon Smith Goodwyn -- sgoodwyn@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, Eric Hemmendinger -- eh@shawie.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, pro hac vice, Lindsey A. White -- white@shawie.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, pro hac vice & Teresa D. Teare -- teare@shawie.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, pro hac vice. GPS HOLDINGS: Cancel Seeks to Certify Class of Massage Therapists ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JUSTINE MARIE CANCEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GPS HOLDINGS 1, LLC d/b/a MASSAGE ENVY, JOHN DOES 1-10, AND XYZ CORP. 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-09599-KM-JBC (D.N.J.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Act and order notice sent to members of a class of: all current and former Massage Therapists employed by GPS Holdings 1, LLC d/b/a Massage Envy on or after December 30, 2013, who have not been paid for all hours worked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5p6lIxCq The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty Hyderally, Esq. HYDERALLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 33 Plymouth Street, Suite 202 Montclair, NJ 07042 Telephone: (973) 509-8500 Facsimile: (973) 509-8501 E-mail: tyh@employmentlit.com HALLIBURTON CO: Faces "Leblanc" Suit Alleging Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------------- BRENT LEBLANC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00718-KRS-GJF (D.N.M., July 10, 2017), alleges that instead of paying Plaintiff overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, Halliburton paid oilfield personnel a daily rate with no overtime pay and improperly classified them as independent contractors. Halliburton is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company operating worldwide and throughout the United States, including in New Mexico. LeBlanc worked exclusively for Halliburton as a directional driller.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com Email: mparmet@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com HD SUPPLY: Retirement System Alleges Securities Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HD SUPPLY HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH J. DEANGELO, AND EVAN J. LEVITT, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02587-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2017), alleges a fraudulent and illegal scheme by HD Supply's senior executives to artificially inflate the Company's stock price by issuing false and misleading guidance and hiding critical information from investors. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HD Supply's full year 2017 growth and operational leverage targets were unattainable; (2) the operational recovery of its Facilities Maintenance supply chain was not going according to plan; (3) the Company was exploring the sale of its Waterworks segment; and (4) Defendant Joseph DeAngelo, HD Supply's President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, with full knowledge of the undisclosed materially adverse facts alleged herein, embarked on a selling spree of personal holdings of HD Supply stock that netted him over $54 million in proceeds. The case was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired HD Supply securities between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017. HD Supply is one of the largest industrial distributors in North America. The Company provides a broad range of products and services to approximately 500,000 professional customers in the maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power and specialty construction sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Thomas Lacy, Esq. LINDSEY & LACY, PC 2002 Commerce Dr. N., Suite 300 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Phone: (770) 486-8445 Fax: (770) 486-8889 Email: tlacy@llptc.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com Email: jwhite@saxenawhite.com Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Phone: (954) 916-1202 Fax: (954) 916-1232 Email: stu@robertdklausner.com HOUSTON DISTRIBUTING: Salais' Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Melinda Harmon denies the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and notice filed in the lawsuit titled JACOB R SALAIS v. HOUSTON DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-02715 (S.D. Tex.). Jacob Salais is a former employee of the Defendant. There is some disagreement regarding the Plaintiff's actual job titles, but his duties primarily consisted of manually feeding cases of beer into an automated distribution and loading system, according to the Court's order and opinion. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from each day's work for meal periods even though the workers were required to work during the lunch periods, were often interrupted with work tasks during their lunch period, or were not able to take a lunch break at all. Mr. Salais seeks to certify a conditional class under the Fair Labor Standards Act: All plant workers employed by Houston Distributing Company, Inc. during the past three years who were required to work through their meal period or were not permitted to take an uninterrupted meal break, and who were subject to the automatic meal break deduction. Judge Harmon opines that Mr. Salais has not included any affidavits from other potential class members, nor does he allege that he is aware of any specific individuals who are interested in joining the lawsuit. "Salais only makes a bare statement that he "know[s] that other current and former employees . . . would be interested to learn about this lawsuit," Judge Harmon notes. A copy of the Order and Opinion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pzlqO9jM HYATT EQUITIES: Class Certification Sought in "Guarisma" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Guarisma asks the Court to enter an order certifying the case captioned CARLOS GUARISMA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HYATT EQUITIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-20931-UU (S.D. Fla.), to proceed as a class action. Mr. Guarisma seeks an order from the Court certifying the proposed Class of individuals for whom, like him, Hyatt printed a credit/debit card receipt that revealed the expiration date and the first six digits of the proposed class member's credit or debit card. He also asks the Court to appoint him and his counsel class representative and class counsel, respectively. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c65TR3q0 The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. Patrick C. Crotty, Esq. Sean M. Holas, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com patrick@scottdowens.com sean@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW LTD. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint remains pending. Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (the "Class Action"). The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations and prospects. The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these legal matters. * * * In a March 14, 2016 Order, the motion of the City of Atlanta Police Officers' Pension Fund and the City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund (1) for consolidation; (2) to be appointed lead plaintiffs; and (3) for approval of their choice of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Saxena White P.A. as co-lead counsel, was granted. Motions by other movants were granted as to consolidation but were otherwise denied. In a June 30, 2017 Notice, Marc. G. Farris, Esq., at Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, withdrew as counsel for Defendant David Blumberg. Eric Corngold, Esq., and John N. Orsini, Esq., at Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, who remain members in good standing of the bar of this Court, remain as counsel for Mr. Blumberg. Judge Paul G. Gardephe presides over the case. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Consolidated Stockholder Action Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend against a consolidated stockholder action. Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16- cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. As of the date hereof, service of the initiating papers in the Fergus matter has not been made on the Company. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune and other serious diseases. INC RESEARCH: Faces "Fink" Suit Over Proposed Merger w/ inVentiv ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INC RESEARCH HOLDINGS, INC., ALISTAIR MACDONALD, ROBERT W. BRECKON, DAVID Y. NORTON, DAVID F. BURGSTAHLER, LINDA S. HARTY, RICHARD N. KENDER, WILLIAM KLITGAARD, KENNETH F. MEYERS, MATTHEW E. MONAGHAN and ERIC P. PAQUES, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00927-UNA (D. Del., July 10, 2017), alleges that the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement in connection with the proposed merger between INC and inVentiv Health, Inc. In particular, the Proxy allegedly contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company and inVentiv; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC, in support of their fairness opinion. The special meeting of INC stockholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is scheduled for July 31, 2017. The Plaintiff says it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholders vote, so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidate Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Lesley Russel, Anthony P. Zook filed on July 17 a motion to dismiss the class action complaints filed by Anthony Pepicelli and by Jianmin Huang. Both cases have been consolidated. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that, "We and certain of our executive officers have been named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit initially filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 24, 2017, captioned Anthony Pepicelli v. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Anthony P. Zook, Jose Carmona and Lesley Russel, civil action no. 2:17-cv-00341-GEKP." "We and certain of our executive officers also have been named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit initially filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 16, 2017, captioned Jianmin Huang v. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Anthony P. Zook, Jose Carmona and Lesley Russel, civil action no. 2:17-cv-00740-GEKP. "The plaintiffs in Pepicelli requested that defendants waive service of process pursuant to federal Rule 4, and defendants have done so. No attempt has been made to serve in Huang and no request for waiver of service has been mailed. "All plaintiffs have joined in an unopposed motion to consolidate the two actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs. "The allegations in both complaints are substantively identical. The complaints in both actions allege that we and certain of our executive officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false or misleading statements and omissions relating to the development of Xaracoll and/or related requests for regulatory approval. The complaints also allege that the defendant officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While we believe that we have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims in the class actions and intend to vigorously defend the case, these lawsuits could divert our management's and board's attention from other business matters, the outcome of the pending litigation is difficult to predict and quantify, and the defense against the underlying claims will likely be costly. The ultimate resolution of this matter could result in payments of monetary damages or other costs, materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, or adversely affect our reputation, and consequently, could negatively impact the price of our ordinary shares." In an April 25 order, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed Russel Bleiler, Ashok Chainani, Jianmin Huang and Carl Bayney as lead plaintiffs. The Rosen Law Firm was appointed as lead counsel. The Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter oversees the case. Innocoll Holdings is a global, commercial stage, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company, with late-stage development programs targeting areas of significant unmet medical need. INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Rubin" Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit by Michael Rubin remains pending, Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On July 21, 2017, a Notice was entered in the case docket requiring plaintiff to effectuate service of the summons and complaint by Aug. 5. On May 5, 2017, a purported Innocoll shareholder filed a putative class action against Innocoll and the members of the Innocoll Board that challenges the disclosures made in connection with the Acquisition. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is styled Michael Rubin v. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Anthony P. Zook, Jonathan Symonds, Shumeet Banerji, David R. Brennan, A. James Culverwell, Rolf D. Schmidt and Joseph Wiley., civil action no. 2:17-cv-02066-NIQA. The complaint alleges that the proxy statement filed by Innocoll on April 21, 2017 fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the forthcoming shareholder votes on the Acquisition and the consummation of the Acquisition or, in the alternative, for rescission of the Acquisition or rescissory damages. The plaintiff also seeks certain costs and fees, including attorneys' and experts' fees. Innocoll and the members of the Innocoll Board believe that the claims asserted in the action are without merit and intend to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. Similar cases may also be filed in connection with the Acquisition. The company said, "On April 4, 2017, we and Gurnet Point L.P., a Delaware limited partnership acting through its general partner Waypoint International GP LLC ("Gurnet Point"), issued an announcement (the "Rule 2.5 Announcement") in accordance with Rule 2.5 of the Irish Takeover Panel Act 1997, Takeover Rules 2013 (the "Irish Takeover Rules"), setting forth the terms of the recommended acquisition of our entire issued and to be issued share capital (the "Acquisition") by Lough Ree Technologies Limited, an Irish private limited company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Gurnet Point ("Gurnet Bidco"), by means of a scheme of arrangement (the "Scheme") under Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Irish Companies Act of 2014 (the "Companies Act"). " Innocoll Holdings is a global, commercial stage, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company, with late-stage development programs targeting areas of significant unmet medical need. INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Westmoreland Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case, Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure Foods, Inc. et al., remains pending. On April 4, 2016, a purported class action captioned Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Additional defendants are the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of the secondary securities offering that closed September 14, 2014 (the "September 2014 Offering"). The class action complaint, which was amended a second time on March 27, 2017, alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and focuses on the conditions at the Company's former frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia. Westmoreland seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and the September 2014 Offering underwriters have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Company is vigorously defending against the claims. Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for fiscal 2016. INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss "Blair" Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in the class action lawsuit by Michelle Blair and Shannah Burton remains pending. On November 14, 2016, Michelle Blair (represented by Matthew Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC and Stuart Cochran of Cochran Law PLLC) filed a putative class action against the Company in St. Louis City Circuit Court. Ms. Blair purports to represent a class of consumers who purchased one of nine Boulder Canyon(R) brand products listing "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient. Ms. Blair contends that the use of "evaporated cane juice" was misleading because evaporated cane juice is sugar. In the complaint, Ms. Blair advances claims for violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 407.020, et seq. and 15 C.S.R. 60-8.020, et seq., and unjust enrichment. On February 3, 2017, the Company removed the action to the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff dismissed the removed action without prejudice and refiled a substantially similar complaint in the Southern District of Illinois. The new complaint is brought by Ms. Blair and a new plaintiff, Shannah Burton, and asserts a nationwide putative class, as well as a putative class of Illinois and Missouri purchasers. Ms. Burton alleges claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/2, et seq. Both plaintiffs also assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. On April 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for fiscal 2016. INVENTURE FOODS: Defending Against "Schoenfeld" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company will defend itself against the case, Glenn Schoenfeld v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al. On March 27, 2017, a purported class action captioned Glenn Schoenfeld v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv- 00910, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired Inventure Foods securities between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017. The Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are also named as defendants. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and focuses on the Company's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, its statements of operations for fiscal year 2015, and public statements in press releases and SEC filings between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017. Mr. Schoenfeld seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the action, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for fiscal 2016. INVENTURE FOODS: Still Defends "Robinson" Suit ---------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is defending itself against the case, John Robinson v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al. On April 27, 2017, a purported class action captioned John Robinson v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01258, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired Inventure Foods securities between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The allegations focus on the Company's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, its statements of operations for fiscal year 2015, and public statements in press releases and SEC filings between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017. Mr. Robinson seeks certification as a class action, unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for fiscal 2016. INWELL INC: "Culley" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Operators ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHADDEN CULLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INWELL, INC. and MWD SERVICES (MGMT), INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02097 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as independent contractors. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those persons who are current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants as Measurement While Drilling (MWD) Operators and were paid a day rate but no overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) in each workweek. INWELL, INC. and MWD SERVICES (MGMT), INC. are together an oilfield service company with significant operations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com ISORAY INC: Lawsuit Related to Equity Plans Resolved ---------------------------------------------------- IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has settled the class action lawsuit related to equity plans. On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint captioned Griffith, et al. v. LaVoy, et al., No. 17-2-00194-2, was filed in the Superior Court of Washington in and for Benton and Franklin Counties against the Company, its Board of Directors, and a former director and officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 302A.437 of the Minnesota Business Corporation Act because, due to a significant number of broker non-votes at the respective meetings, the Company did not receive at least a majority of the voting power of the minimum number of shares entitled to vote that would constitute a quorum in favor of proposals to approve the Company's 2014 Employee Stock Option Plan (2014 Plan) and 2016 Equity Incentive Plan (2016 Plan) (collectively, the "Plans"). The complaint alleges that since the Plans were not properly approved by shareholders under Minnesota law, the Plans and the Company's equity awards under the Plans are invalid. The complaint also alleges that members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties by deeming these Plans approved by shareholders when they were not under Minnesota law and by authorizing equity awards to be made under these Plans. Unless the Company obtains the requisite shareholder approvals under Minnesota law, the complaint seeks cancellation of the Plans and rescission of all awards made under the Plans, an injunction prohibiting the Company from making further awards under the Plans, and an award of fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel. The Company and the other defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. The Company, members of the Board, and the former director and officer of the Company vigorously deny that they violated Minnesota law and, as to the non-company defendants, that they breached any fiduciary duty. No awards were issued to then-outside directors under the 2014 Plan. No awards made to anyone under the 2014 Plan have been exercised. No awards were issued under the 2016 Plan. In order to correct mistakes, if any, in connection with the approvals of these Plans or the issuance of these equity awards under the 2014 Plan, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit in order to remedy the claims alleged in the complaint and to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. This settlement in principle includes an agreement to seek approval of the 2014 Plan and approval of prior grants under the 2014 Plan, each from shareholders pursuant to the higher voting threshold imposed by Minnesota corporate laws, and cancel the 2016 Plan altogether. The Company called a Special Meeting of the Shareholders, to be held on June 15, 2017, primarily to seek these approvals. As part of the settlement in principle, the parties have agreed to either (a) negotiate an attorneys' fee award for plaintiffs' counsel or (b) if an agreement cannot be reached, accept the court's decision as to an appropriate attorneys' fee award. "We cannot at this time estimate the attorneys' fee award," the Company said. IsoRay is a brachytherapy device manufacturer with FDA clearance and CE marking for a single medical device that can be delivered to the physician in multiple configurations as prescribed for the treatment of cancers in multiple body sites. The Company manufactures and sells this product as the Cesium-131 brachytherapy seed. J JAIME: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Torres, individually and on behalf of all current and former home health providers v. J Jaime Home Health Services, LLC d/b/a Mi Esperanza Provider Care; Maria G. Jaime; and/or Jose Jaime, Case No. 2:17-cv-00229 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide home health, elderly care, and other specialized services in the home health industry throughout South Texas and the Coastal Bend. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlwaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com JEMA CONSTRUCTION: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Selvin Yovany Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jema Construction, Inc., Hsuch Hui Liu, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC667156 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. Jema Construction, Inc. owns and operates a construction company located at 5040 Heintz St, Baldwin Park, CA 91706. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Risemberg, Esq. RGLAWYERS, LLP 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 815-2727 Facsimile: (818) 815-2737 E-mail: jr@rglawyers.com JONES FINANCIAL: Retirement Plan Litigation Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Retirement Plan Litigation remains pending. On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under ERISA, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 12, 2016, which was denied in part and granted in part on January 26, 2017. The claim against JFC was dismissed. All other claims remained in the case. On November 11, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in another putative class action lawsuit (Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under ERISA, by two participants in the Retirement Plan. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and sought declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. On February 10, 2017, plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case. On February 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of the Schultz action. On April 28, 2017, plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint. The defendants' time to respond has not yet run. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. ("Edward Jones"), is a registered broker-dealer and investment adviser in the United States ("U.S."), and one of Edward Jones' subsidiaries is a registered broker-dealer in Canada. Through these entities, the Partnership primarily serves individual investors in the U.S. and Canada. Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business through the distribution of mutual fund shares to, fees related to assets held by and account services provided to its clients, including investment advisory services, the purchase or sale of securities and insurance products, and principal transactions. The Partnership conducts business throughout the U.S. and Canada with its clients, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks. Trust services are offered to Edward Jones' U.S. clients through Edward Jones Trust Company ("Trust Co."), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Partnership. Olive Street Investment Advisers, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Partnership, provides investment advisory services to the sub- advised mutual funds in the Bridge Builder(R) Trust. JOYERIA ELIZABETH: Accused by "Diaz" Suit of Violating FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIORDALIZA DIAZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. JOYERIA ELIZABETH I, CORP., JOYERIA ELIZABETH II, CORP., JOYERIA ELIZABETH III, CORP., and TOMASA IZAQUIRRE, individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-05136 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Joyeria Elizabeth is an entity consisting of three separate New York corporations that together operate as a single business enterprise that engage in related activities, with a common business purpose, and with each of their principal places of business located in New York City. Tomasa Izaquirre is the chief executive officer of Joyeria Elizabeth. The Defendants sell jewelry and other items that the Company acquires from patrons through sale, or as collateral for loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com KATE SPADE: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Sale to Coach Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS P. BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KATE SPADE & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2017-0499 (Del. Ch., July 10, 2017), is an action under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, by a stockholder of Kate Spade & Company, seeking to enforce his right to inspection of books and records in order to determine whether wrongdoing or mismanagement has taken place such that it would be appropriate to file claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and to investigate the independence and disinterestedness of the Company's directors generally and with respect to the Company's proposed acquisition by Coach, Inc. and Chelsea Merger Sub Inc. The Company operates principally under two global, multichannel lifestyle brands: Kate Spade New York and Jack Spade.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 367-7100 - and - David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0063 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 504-4957 KELLY SERVICES: Aug. 2 Final Settlement Hearing ----------------------------------------------- Kelly Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that a court hearing is scheduled for August 2, 2017 to consider final approval for settlement in a class action lawsuit. The Company is a party to a pending nationwide class action lawsuit entitled Hillson et al. v Kelly Services. The suit alleges that current and former temporary employees of Kelly Services are entitled to monetary damages for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirement that the notice and disclosure form provided to employees for purposes of conducting a background screening be a standalone document. On April 20, 2016 the parties entered into a formal settlement agreement. A court hearing is scheduled for August 2, 2017 to consider final approval for settlement. In light of amounts previously expensed and anticipated recoveries from third parties, Kelly recorded an accrual in the fourth quarter of 2015 of $4.1 million to reflect the expected cost of the tentative settlement. Kelly Services is a global workforce solutions company, serving customers of all sizes in a variety of industries. KNAUF GIPS: Mitchell Co. Moves to Certify Class in Drywall Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Mitchell Co. Inc. v. Knauf Gips KG, et al., Case No. 09-cv-4115 (E.D. La.), moves the Court for certification of this Class: All persons and entities in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, and Florida that used drywall manufactured by Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd., for the construction, repair, or remodeling of any improvement to real property and who incurred any expenses associated with (1) repair or replacement of all or part of the defective drywall, and/or (2) repair or replacement of other property damaged by the defective drywall, and/or (3) attorneys' fees and costs in defense of claims by affected homeowners, and/or (4) other expenses that were or incurred as part of the remediation of the defective drywall, including, without limitation, the cost of investigation and expert analysis of the defect, and cost of relocating customers displaced by the presence of defective drywall. Excluded from the proposed Class are any owners, landlords, or residents of real properties located in the United States containing defective Chinese drywall manufactured, sold, distributed, supplied, marketed, inspected, imported, or delivered by Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.; Defendant Taishan, its legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; the judge to whom this action is assigned and members of the judge's immediate family; claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress; and all persons or entities who properly execute and timely file a request for exclusion from the class. The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation known as IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW. The Court will commence a hearing on August 23, 2017, to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gnMrRVDI Plaintiff The Mitchell Company, Inc., and other Builder Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven L. Nicholas, Esq. CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC 1601 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36604 Telephone: (251) 471-6191 Facsimile: (251) 479-1031 E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Sarah R. London, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com slondon@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: Kerry J. Miller, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 566-8646 Facsimile: (504) 585-6946 E-mail: kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com LAUREATE EDUCATION: MDL Panel Denied Bid to Transfer Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Laureate Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the MDL panel has denied the plaintiffs' motion to transfer. The Company said, "On October 5, 2016, a student filed suit against us and Walden University in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the matter of Latonya Thornhill v. Walden University, et. al., claiming that her progress in her program was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims include fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, consumer fraud under the laws of Maryland and Ohio, and unjust enrichment. We and Walden University were served on October 17, 2016. On December 16, 2016, we and Walden University filed a motion to dismiss the claims and a motion to strike the class action certification request. On January 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making modifications to supplement some of the factual allegations and seeking to change the governing law of the case to the law of Minnesota. A substantive response to the amended complaint was filed on February 9, 2017. The Thornhill court temporarily stayed this case in its entirety until May 1, 2017, pending the outcome of the Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding discussed below. Following denial of the MDL transfer motion, the Thornhill court is proceeding to establish a schedule in this matter. The motion to dismiss remains pending. Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class." "On October 18, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and Walden University pro se in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the matter of Eric D. Streeter v. Walden University, et. al. (Case No. 1CCB6-CV-3460), claiming that his progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and Laureate. The claims include unjust enrichment, breach of contract, violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, libel, and violation of the False Claims Act. We filed a motion to dismiss on April 12, 2017, which remains pending. Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously. "On December 1, 2016, five students filed suit against us and Walden University in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the matter of Jennifer Wright, et al v. Walden University, et. al., claiming that their progress in their programs was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims include fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, consumer fraud, and breach of implied covenant of fair dealing under the laws of Minnesota, California, Georgia, Washington and Michigan, and unjust enrichment. Walden University and we were served in this matter on December 8, 2016, Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class. On January 13, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to the first-filed rule, based upon the fact that the Thornhill case was filed first in Ohio. The Wright court issued an order on April 21, 2017 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (without prejudice). The plaintiffs may seek leave to join the Thornhill case or may file individual cases without class allegations. "On December 20, 2016, a former student filed suit against Walden University, in the Bexar County District Court in Texas in the matter of Dianna Medellin v. Walden University, LLC (Case No. 2016C121637), claiming that Walden University intentionally deceived her by praising her and allowing her to successfully complete her coursework in her doctoral program, only to then prolong the dissertation writing process as much as possible. The case alleges causes of action for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud and includes certain factual allegations that are identical to the other purported class action lawsuits. Laureate has not been sued in this matter and Walden University was served on January 26, 2017. Walden removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on February 21, 2017. This matter has been resolved and the case was dismissed on March 15, 2017. "On December 29, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and Walden University in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the matter of Aaron Bleess, et al v. Walden University, et. al (Case No. 16-CV-4402), claiming that his progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims include, under the laws of Minnesota, breach of contract, consumer fraud, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Fraud Act. Laureate and Walden University were served on January 5 and January 6, 2017, respectively. On January 17, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to the first-filed rule, based upon the fact that the Thornhill case was filed first in Ohio. The Bleess court stayed the proceedings pending a ruling on this motion to dismiss. Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class. This case appears to be nearly identical in allegations, including the same alleged class, as Thornhill and Wright. The court issued an order on April 21, 2017 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (without prejudice). The plaintiffs may seek leave to join the Thornhill case or may file individual cases without class allegations. "On December 23, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs in Thornhill and Wright filed a motion to consolidate pretrial proceedings in these matters, as well as the Streeter and Medellin matters, to the United States Judicial Panel on MDL. Bleess's counsel filed a notice of intent to participate as an interested party of the consolation motion. Laureate and Walden University filed a motion in opposition to transfer to MDL on January 17, 2017, which was opposed on January 24, 2017. A hearing was held on March 30, 2017 and the MDL panel issued an order on April 5, 2017 denying the plaintiffs' motion to transfer." Laureate Education, Inc. and subsidiaries provide higher education programs and services to students through an international network of licensed universities and higher education institutions (institutions). LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION: Opposed Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Zhang v. Lifevantage et al., 2:16-cv-00965 (D. Utah), Defendants on July 20 filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint. LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016). In this action (now recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and now-former Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's internal controls and financial results for the first, second and third quarters of fiscal year 2016. The initial complaint sought unspecified damages against the defendants on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016. By stipulation filed October 7, 2016, the parties agreed that defendants need not respond to the initial complaint in the action until after a lead plaintiff is appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), at which time the parties will meet and confer regarding the timing of the filing of an amended complaint and responses thereto. On November 14, 2016, three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed. On December 13, 2016, the Court appointed Dale Blanch and Yvonne Cohen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead plaintiffs' counsel. On January 27, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and a motion to strike certain irrelevant matters from the amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions on April 19, 2017. Defendants filed their reply on May 10, 2017. The Court has not set a hearing date for the motion. By operation of the PSLRA, all discovery and other proceedings are stayed in this action pending a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. LifeVantage is a company focused on nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and naturally occurring compounds affect human genes. MABRY MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Carillo and Jenny Carrillo Alas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mabry Management Co., Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC667019 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all minimum wages earned and all overtime hours worked on excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. Mabry Management Co., Inc. is a privately owned for-profit corporation that provides property management services throughout Southern California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Petronelli, Esq. Dean S. Ho, Esq. Julia M. Damron, Esq. PETRONELLI & HO LLP 295 Redonbo Avenue, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (888) 855-3670 Facsimile: (888) 449-9675 E-mail: christian@employees-lawyer.com dean@employees-lawyer.com julia@employees-lawyer.com MANNKIND CORPORATION: Defending Against Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit related to the Sanofi license agreement. Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline in our stock price, two motions were submitted to the district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a class action against MannKind and certain of our officers and directors. In general, the complaints alleged that MannKind and certain of our officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions without prejudice. In the remaining action, the district court will be asked to determine whether Israeli or U.S. law is applicable before the case can be certified as a class action. The deadline for plaintiff's motion regarding the applicable law was due on May 14, 2017. "We will vigorously defend against the claims advanced," the Company said. MannKind is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of therapeutic products for diseases such as diabetes. The Company's only approved product, Afrezza (insulin human [rDNA origin]) inhalation powder, is a rapid-acting inhaled insulin that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") on June 27, 2014 to improve glycemic control in adult patients with diabetes. MDL 2311: September 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership that Bought a Truck and/or Equipment for Resale or Lease, or Bought Certain Replacement Parts for Trucks and/or Equipment in the U.S. Since 2000 You Could Get Money from Settlements Totaling Approximately $4,745,000 A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer 1. Why is there a Notice? This Notice is to inform you about Settlements reached in a pending case that is included in this litigation, before the Court decides whether to finally approve the Settlements. This Notice explains the lawsuits, the Settlements, and your legal rights. The Court in charge is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This litigation is known as In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311, and this Notice applies to Cases No. 2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM and No. 2:14-cv- 00507-MOB-MKM. The people who sued are called the "Plaintiffs." The companies they sued are called the "Defendants." 2. What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit claims that the Defendants agreed to unlawfully raise the price of certain motor vehicle Bearings. As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who purchased for resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as replacement parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant, are alleged to have paid more than they should have. Although the Settling Defendants have agreed to settle, the Settling Defendants do not agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet decided who is right. 3. Who are the Settling Defendants? The Settling Defendants are: SKF USA Inc. ("SKF USA"), Nachi- Fujikoshi Corporation and Nachi America Inc. ("Nachi"), and NSK Ltd. and NSK Americas, Inc. (("NSK") and collectively with SKF USA and Nachi, "Settling Defendants"). 4. Who are the Non-Settling Defendants? A list of all of the Defendants and the parts they manufactured and sold is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. 5. What Vehicle Parts are included? The Settlements involve the following vehicle component parts: Bearings refers to bearings used in heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, medium duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other similar vehicles as set forth in Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Class Action Complaint, Case No. 2:14-cv-13356 (July 24, 2015) [Doc. 23] ("Bearings Complaint"), whether sold separately, in combination, or as part of a module, assembly, or system. 6. Why is this a class action? In class actions, one or more people or entities called the "class representatives" sue on behalf of themselves and other people with similar claims in the specific class action. All of these people together are the "Class" or "Class members." In this class action, there is a total of nineteen class representatives. In a class action, one court may resolve the issues for all Class members, except for those who exclude themselves from the class. 7. How do I know if I may be included in the Classes? Generally, you are included if, at any time from January 1, 2000 through May 25, 2017, inclusive, you were a dealer of heavy-duty (Class 8) or medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles (excluding automobiles, light trucks, vans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, pickup trucks, and/or similar vehicles sold by automobile dealers), all-terrain vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, materials-handling vehicles, and other similar vehicles ("Trucks and/ or Equipment") that: (a) purchased Trucks and/or Equipment containing a Bearing, which was manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant, or (b) indirectly purchased such a Bearing as a replacement part. "Indirectly" means you bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other than the manufacturer of the part. The specific definitions of who is included in the Settlement Classes are set forth in the Settlement Agreements between the Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants. Those Settlement Agreements, and the related Complaints are accessible on the website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. Set forth below at page 13 is a chart, referred to as Addendum A, identifying the pages and paragraph numbers of the relevant Settlement Class definitions for the Settlement Agreements that will permit you to determine whether you are a member of the Settlement Classes. Payments to members of the Settlement Classes will only be made: (1) if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved, and (2) in accordance with a Plan of Allocation to distribute the Settlement Funds minus expenses, court-approved attorneys' fees, and incentive awards ("Net Settlement Funds") to members of the Settlement Classes who do not opt out of the Settlements. A Plan of Allocation will be proposed to the Court for approval at the conclusion of the cases against Non-Settling Defendants or as ordered by the Court. The Plan, as approved by the Court, will determine the amount, if any, that each member of the Settlement Class(es) will receive. The Plan will be described in a future Notice, to be given at a later date, providing members of the Settlement Class with an opportunity to state their views regarding the Plan. This case is proceeding as a class action seeking monetary recovery for dealers and businesses in 29 states and the District of Columbia, and for nationwide injunctive relief to stop the Defendants' alleged illegal behavior and prevent this behavior from happening in the future (see Question 13). Dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment that are indirect purchasers of any of the Bearings manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant may be members of the Settlement Classes entitled to monetary recovery if the purchase transaction occurred in the District of Columbia or one or more of the following states during the relevant time periods listed below: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The time period covered by the Settlements for each of the Classes is provided below. Defendants Time Period Starts Time Period Ends Auto Part(s) Nachi-Fujikoshi January 1, 2000 May 11, 2017 Bearings Corporation Nachi America Inc. NSK Ltd. January 1, 2000 May 25 ,2017 Bearings NSK Americas, Inc. SKF USA Inc. January 1, 2000 April 6, 2017 Bearings The specific definition of each Settlement Class is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com or can be obtained by calling 1-866- 742-4955. 8. Who is not included in the Classes? The Settlement Classes do not include: -- Any of the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; -- Any alleged co-conspirators; -- Federal government entities and instrumentalities; -- States and their political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities; and -- All persons who purchased Bearings directly from a Defendant; and -- All purchasers or lessors of new vehicles who are not dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment. The Settlements' Benefits 9. What do the settlements provide? The Settlement Funds amount to $4,745,000. After deduction of attorneys' fees, notice and claims administration costs, and litigation expenses, as approved by the Court, the remaining Settlement Funds will be available for distribution to members of the Settlement Classes who timely file valid claims. Certain Settlements also include non-monetary relief (see Question 13) as more fully described in the proposed Final Judgments located on the Settlement website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. The Settlement Funds are allocated to the motor vehicle cases in question, as follows: Auto Parts Settlements and Settlement Funds Automotive Parts Case: Bearings Settling Defendants: Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation Nachi America Inc. Settlement Amount: $475,000 Settlement Fund: $475,000 Automotive Parts Case: Bearings Settling Defendants: NSK Ltd. NSK Americas, Inc. Settlement Amount: $3,260,000 Settlement Fund: $3,170,0001 Automotive Parts Case: Bearings Settling Defendants: SKF USA Inc. Settlement Amount: $1,100,000 Settlement Fund: $1,100,000 Total: $4,745,000 Any interest earned will be added to each of the Settlement Funds. More details about the Settlements are set forth in the Settlement Agreements, available at ww.TruckDealerSettlement.com. How To Get Benefits 10. How much money can I get? At this time, it is unknown how much each member of each Settlement Class who submits a valid claim will receive. Payments will be based on a number of factors, including at least the number of valid claims filed by all members of each Settlement Class and the number of (1) new Trucks and/or Equipment each purchased containing a Bearing and (2) Bearings each purchased indirectly as replacement parts. It's possible that any money remaining after claims are paid will be distributed to charities, governmental entities, or other beneficiaries approved by the Court. No matter how many claims are filed, no money will be returned to the Settling Defendants once the Court finally approves the Settlements. In order to receive a payment, you will need to file a valid claim form before the claims period ends. The claims period has not yet begun. A Notice about the claims process will be provided at a later date as ordered by the Court. If you want to be kept updated about the claims process or any future settlements, you should register at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. 11. When will I get a payment? No money will be distributed yet. All Settlement Funds that remain after payment of the court ordered attorneys' fees, incentive awards, costs, and expenses (see Question 10) will be distributed as ordered by the Court. 12. What is the non-monetary relief? Certain Settling Defendants will cooperate with the Plaintiffs in their ongoing litigation against the NonSettling Defendants. Remaining In The Class(es) 13. What happens if I remain in the Class(es)? You will give up your right to sue the Settling Defendants on your own for the claims described in the Settlement Agreements unless you exclude yourself from the Class. You also will be bound by any decisions by the Court relating to the Settlements. In return for paying the Settlement amounts and/or providing the non-monetary benefits, the Settling Defendants (and certain related entities defined in the Settlement Agreements) will be released from claims relating to the alleged conduct involving Bearings identified in the Settlement Agreements. The Settlement Agreements describe the released claims in detail, so read them carefully since those releases will be binding on you if the Court approves the Settlements. If you have any questions, you can talk to Class Counsel listed in Question 18 for free, or you can, of course, talk to your own lawyer (at your own expense) if you have questions about what this means. The Settlement Agreements and the specific releases are available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. Excluding Yourself From The Class(es) 14. How do I get out of the Class(es)? To exclude your dealership from a Settlement, your dealership must send a letter by mail stating that it wants to be excluded from the relevant Settlement Class(es) (including the Settlement(s) from which your dealership wishes to be excluded). The letter must also include: -- The case name: In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311; -- The name, address, telephone number, and signature of a person with the authority to bind the dealership in its decision to exclude itself from the Settlement(s); -- All trade names or business names and addresses the dealership has used as a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership, as well as any subsidiaries or affiliates who are requesting to be excluded from the Settlement(s); and -- Your dealership's dealer number(s) / dealer identification number(s) (for each original equipment manufacturer for which you are or were an authorized dealer). You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than August 23, 2017, to: Clerk's Office Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 564 Detroit, MI 48226 and to: RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 15. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue for the same thing later? No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue the Settling Defendants for the claims being released in this litigation. 16. If I exclude myself, can I still get money benefits? No. If you exclude yourself from a Settlement Class, you will not get any money as a result of that Settlement. However, you may exclude yourself from one Settlement but remain in the other Settlement(s). In that case, you may receive money from the Settlement(s) in which you remain. The Lawyers Representing You 17. Do I have a lawyer representing me? The Court has appointed the following law firm as Class Counsel to represent you and all other members of the Settlement Classes: J. Manly Parks Andrew R. Sperl Duane Morris, LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 You will not be charged for contacting these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. 18. How will the lawyers be paid? At the final approval hearing, Class Counsel will ask the Court to reimburse them for certain costs and expenses. At the final approval hearing, or at a later date, Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees based on their services in this litigation. Class Counsel may also request a payment to the class representatives who helped the lawyers on behalf of the Classes. Any payment to the attorneys and class representatives will be subject to Court approval, and the Court may award less than the requested amount. The attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and awards that the Court orders, plus the costs to administer the Settlements, will come out of the Settlement Funds. Class Counsel may seek additional attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses from any other settlements or recoveries obtained in the future. When Class Counsel's motion for fees, costs and expenses, and class representative payments is filed, it will be available at www.TruckDealerSettlement. The motion will be posted on the website at least 30 days before the Court holds a hearing to consider the request, and you will have an opportunity to comment on the motion. (See Question 20.) Register at the website or call 1-866-742-4955 to receive notice when the motion is filed. Objecting To The Settlements 19. How do I object to or comment on the Settlements? If you have objections to or comments about any aspect of the Settlements, you may express your views to the Court. You can object to or comment on a Settlement only if you do not exclude yourself from that Settlement Class. To object to or comment on a Settlement, you must specify which Settlement (including the Settling Defendant(s)) you are objecting to in a letter that also contains the following: -- The case name: In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311; -- The name, address, telephone number, and signature of a person with the authority to bind your dealership in its decision not to exclude itself from the Settlement(s); -- All trade names or business names and addresses the dealership has used as a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership, as well as any subsidiaries or affiliates who are not requesting to be excluded from the Settlement(s); -- Your dealership's dealer number(s) / dealer identification number(s) (for each original equipment manufacturer for which you are or were an authorized dealer); -- The name of each Settling Defendant whose Settlement you are objecting to or commenting on; -- The automotive part case, Bearings, that is the subject of your objection(s) or comments; and -- The reasons you object to the Settlement, along with any supporting materials. Any comment or objection must be postmarked by August 23, 2017, and mailed to: Court U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Clerk's Office Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 564 Detroit, MI 48226 and to: Notice Administrator RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 20. What is the difference between excluding myself from the Class(es) and objecting to the Settlement(s)? If you exclude yourself from one or more of the Classes, you are telling the Court that you do not want to participate in the Settlement(s) from which you exclude yourself. Therefore, you will not be eligible to receive any benefits from those Settlements, and you will not be able to object to those Settlements. Objecting to a Settlement simply means telling the Court that you do not like something about it. Objecting does not make you ineligible to receive a payment. The Final Fairness Hearing The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlements and any requests by Class Counsel for fees, costs, expenses, and class representative awards. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to do so. 21. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlements? The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing at time TBD on September 13, 2017, at the United States Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd, Detroit, MI 48226, Room 272. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so check www.TruckDealerSettlement.com or call 1-866-742-4955 for current information. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections or comments, the Court will consider them at that time and may listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class Counsel. At or after the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlements. 22. Do I have to attend the hearing? No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. But you are welcome to attend at your expense. If you send an objection or comment, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also hire your own lawyer at your own expense to attend on your behalf, but you are not required to do so. 23. May I speak at the hearing? If you send an objection or comment on the Settlements as described in Question 20, you may have the right to speak at the Final Approval Hearing as determined by the Court. You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Class. Get More Information 24. How do I get more information? This Notice summarizes the Settlements. More details are in the Settlement Agreements. You can get copies of the Settlement Agreements and more information about the Settlements at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. You also may write with questions to RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 or call the toll-free number, 1-866-742-4955. You should also register at the website to be directly notified of any future settlements, the terms of the Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Funds, how to file a claim form, and other information concerning this case. MEDTRONIC INC: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Valencia Peterson and Lakesha Hooper, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., Medtronic Logistics LLC, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02457 (W.D. Tenn., June 30, 2017), arises from the policies and practices that result in a systemic disparate treatment of female employees at Medtronic and have a disparate impact on female employees, specifically, by placing or keeping female employees in job titles or classifications lower than similarly situated male employees; failing to develop or provide career advancement opportunities to female employees in a manner commensurate to similarly situated male employees; denying the promotions of qualified female employees into higher-level jobs and instead promoted less qualified male employees to those higher-level jobs; failing to promote female employees at the same rate as similarly situated male employees; disparately evaluating and classifying female and male employees' job performance; compensating female employees less than similarly situated men for equal work; and failing to prevent, adequately investigate or correct instances of gender discrimination in the workplace. As a result, employees are developed, evaluated, compensated, and promoted within a system that is inadequately designed or implemented to equitably compensate or promote female employees without regard to their gender, says the complaint. The Defendants operate a global healthcare solutions company that develops, manufactures and sells medical products, technologies and therapies to diagnose and treat a wide variety of chronic diseases and health conditions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Schlesinger, Esq. Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. Michelle L. Kornblit, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55427 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: schlesinger@nka.com bailey@nka.com mkornblit@nka.com - and - Anne Hunter, Esq. Heather Moore Collins, Esq. COLLINS & HUNTER, PLLC 7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 724-1996 Facsimile: (615) 691-7019 E-mail: anne@collinshunter.com heather@collinshunter.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Madar" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Yardema Madar, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 03940 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: "Amzallag" Consumer Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- AREK AMZALLAG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04098 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2017), was filed on behalf of a class of New York consumers seeking redress for Defendant's illegal practices, in connection with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case alleges, among others, that Defendant's communication to Plaintiff to collect debt fails to disclose information required by law. Defendant is a collection agency with its principal office located in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2F Brooklyn, NY 11223 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: Jmizrahilaw@gmail.com MILDON BUS: Community Vocational Moves for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS OF PITTSBURGH, INC., a corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. MILDON BUS LINES INC., a Pennsylvania corporation v. CAROLINE ABRAHAM and JOEL ABRAHAM, Case No. 2:09-cv-01572-JFC (W.D. Pa.), asks the Court to issue an order certifying the action as a class action. The proposed class is defined as: All persons who were successfully sent one or more faxes on January 11, 2006, from Mildon Bus Lines, Inc. P.O. Box 306, 65 Church St., W. Alexander, PA 15376 to "Tours & Charters" to "Schools" "Seniors" "Churches" and "Clubs" offering "MCI Coaches - 47 Passengers," "Good Service," and "Courteous Professional Drivers." Community Vocational also asks the Court to appoint it as the class representative, and to appoint all of its counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TuAIb4SM The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Evans, Esq. David J. Manogue, Esq. SPECTER SPECTER EVANS & MANOGUE, P.C. 436 7th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 642-2300 Facsimile: (412) 642-2309 E-mail: Jce@ssem.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LL 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com tod@bockhatchllc.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com - and - Max Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 14236 Cedar Springs Drive Chesterfield, MO 63107 Telephone: (314) 434-8502 Facsimile: (314) 434-8451 E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com MY SIZE: Defending Against Class Action in Tel Aviv --------------------------------------------------- My Size, Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that on May 7, the Company was served with an application to approve a shareholders' class action (which was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court on May 3rd, 2017) against the Company, its board members and its CFO (the "Application"). The Application alleges, inter alia, that the Company's report of April 19th, 2017 regarding its engagement with the Israeli Post was false and misleading, and that as a result thereof financial damages have been incurred by two purported classes of shareholders: (i) any shareholder who sold Company's shares as of April 20th, 2017 and until April 27th, 2017, with respect to damage directly caused by such sale and (ii) any shareholder which held shares on April 20th, 2017 and subsequent to April 27th, 2017 with respect to damage caused by permanent adverse effect to the shares' value. The alleged financial damage caused to members of both classes is estimated at NIS 18.8 million. The Company reviewed the Application initially with its legal counsel. At this preliminary stage, the Company believes that there is no direct causal connection between the Company's report which is the subject matter of the Application and the alleged damages caused to either class of purported plaintiffs and that in any case there appears to be no correlation between the alleged scope of damages and the merits of the alleged case. The Company's is reviewing its rights to file a third party claim (notice) against third parties the unlawful acts or omissions of which may have had an adverse effect on the Company's share price and may have contributed to any alleged damage which may have been caused to any of the classes of alleged plaintiffs. The Company will respond to the Application in the time frame ordered by the Court. NATIONAL GAS: Faces Suit Over Intrusive Making Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEN JOHANSEN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00587- JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2017), is brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, National Gas & Electric placed telemarketing calls to a telephone number Mr. Johansen had registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, for the purposes of advertising its goods and services, according to the complaint. Mr. Johansen asserts that he never consented to receive these calls, and they were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. National Gas & Electric, LLC, is a Texas corporation that has its principal office in Houston, Texas. The Company supplies electricity and natural gas for homes and businesses in Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Violates Securities Laws, Gallagher Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS GALLAGHER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC., AMARPREET SAWHNEY, GEORGE MIGAUSKY, ANDREW HURLEY, and ERIC ANKERUD, Case No. 2:17- cv-05011 (D.N.J., July 7, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported securities class action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Ocular Therapeutix from May 5, 2017, through July 6, 2017, both dates inclusive. Ocular Therapeutix is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are located in Bedford, Massachusetts. Ocular Therapeutix focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using its proprietary hydrogel platform technology in the United States. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com OPTIO SOLUTIONS: "Duncan" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Optio Solutions, LLC (d/b/a Qualia Collection Services), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02202 (S.D. Ind., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Optio Solutions, doing business as Qualia Collection Services (QCS), operates a nationwide debt collection business. Defendant sent a collection letter to the plaintiff that does not give a clear indication of who the actual creditor is. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708) 974-2900 Fax: (708) 974-2907 Email: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angiekrobertson@aol.com - and - John T. Steinkamp, Esq. 5214 S. East Street, Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Tel: (317) 780-8300 Fax: (317) 217-1320 Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com PANDA III: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Sun" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Meng Sun, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Panda III Greenwich, Inc. d/b/a Panda Pavilion; Mei Gao, Baodi Liu a/k/a Boadi Liu, and Simon Koh, Case No. 5:17-cv-01096 (D. Conn., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over forty 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 420 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, CT 06830. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford D. Conover, Esq. CONOVER LAW OFFICES 345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 588-9080 E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com - and - John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com PCM INC: Aug. 7 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Pamela Miller v. PCM, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv- 03364 (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Virginia A Phillips will hold a hearing on Aug. 7 to consider the Motions for Appointment of Counsel and Lead Plaintiff filed by: -- Richard Jacobson; and -- Radovan Rasa, Kenneth Rubenfeld, and Stephen Wise. Mr. Jacobson is represented by Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Rasa et al. are represented by Laurence Rosen, Esq. PCM, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on May 3, 2017, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Miller v. PCM Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03364 (C.D. Cal. filed May 3, 2017). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of PCM securities from June 17, 2015 through May 2, 2017, alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b- 5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that the financial statements of En Pointe, a company PCM acquired in 2015, materially overstated the profitability of En Pointe's business. The complaint has not yet been served. The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. PCM, Inc. is a multi-vendor provider of technology solutions, including hardware products, software and services, offered through its dedicated sales force and field service teams and direct marketing channels. PEABODY ENERGY: "Lynn" Plaintiffs File Appeal --------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the Lori J. Lynn Class Action have filed a notice of appeal regarding the March 30th order granting the motion to dismiss. On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC) employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The lawsuit, which was brought against Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company's and PIC's current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans. On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of the then current members and two former members of the relevant boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that included new allegations against the Company related to the Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended complaint also added the three committees responsible for administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and dropped several individual defendants, including the then current directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed against the individual defendants and the three named committees with the second amended complaint. On November 17, 2016, the parties presented arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2017, the United States District Court granted the motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the March 30th order granting the motion to dismiss. Peabody is the world's largest private-sector coal company by volume. PETERSON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss "Halvorsen" Denied ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned COURTNEY HALVORSEN, Plaintiff, v. PETERSON ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington corporation, dba VALLEY EMPIRE COLLECTION, Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-00287-RMP (E.D. Wash.). Defendant filed a writ of garnishment and an affidavit for garnishment in support of the writ to collect a judgment. This writ of garnishment instructed Plaintiff's employer to withhold funds owed to Plaintiff in the amount of the judgment, interest, and costs. Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court requesting class action status and asserting that Defendant's writ of garnishment was invalid because the affidavit for garnishment that accompanied the writ omitted essential requirements and attempted to collect fees and costs on the void writ of garnishment. Plaintiff alleges that this omission and the actions by Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the Washington Collection Agency Act. Plaintiff's prayer for relief includes a request for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, money damages, and attorney fees. Defendant's challenge to Plaintiff's complaint is focused on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b(1), a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate if the complaint on its face, considered in its entirety, fails to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The facts alleged by Plaintiff on all causes of action orbit around the omission of necessary language in the affidavit for garnishment prepared by Defendant, and Defendant's actions in attempting to execute an invalid writ. Plaintiff is asserting a legal wrong resulting from the act or omission of an adverse party, even with the request for relief from the state court judgment the complaint does not constitute a de facto appeal. Therefore, this Court maintains subject matter jurisdiction in this case under the statutes alleged by Plaintiff. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Denied. A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/yZmUSQ from Leagle.com. Cortney Halvorsen, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller, -- kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS. Peterson Enterprises Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law LLC. 320 Cedar Ln, Teaneck, NJ 07666, USA PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss Effexor End-Payers' Claims Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that motions to dismiss remain pending as to the Effexor end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end- payer plaintiffs' remaining claims. PFIZER INC: Appeal in Lipitor Litigation Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' appeal related to the Lipitor litigation remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Company said, "A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as a result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages." "In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In 2016, certain cases in the Multi-District Litigation were remanded to federal courts in California and certain state courts. In January 2017, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing substantially all of the remaining cases pending in the Multi-District Litigation. In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Action in Ontario Discontinued ---------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Ontario Superior Court has issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for voluntary discontinuance of the Ontario action related to Chantix/Champix. Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which was proceeding on a national basis. In April 2017, the Ontario Superior Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for voluntary discontinuance of the Ontario action, with the discontinuance to come into effect in 60 days from the date the order was issued. PFIZER INC: Celebrex End-Payers' Appeal Underway ------------------------------------------------ Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Celebrex end-payers' appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remains pending. Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October 2014 and March 2015, the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints, respectively. In November 2015, the District Court denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' amended complaint. In February 2016, the District Court denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint, and in August 2016, the District Court dismissed substantially all of the end-payer's remaining claims. In February 2017, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all of the end-payers' claims. In March 2017, the end-payers appealed the District Court's order dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of the purchase price. PFIZER INC: Suits over Eliquis Ongoing -------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend multi- plaintiff lawsuits related to Eliquis. The Company said, "A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in various federal and state courts pursuant to which plaintiffs seek to recover for personal injuries, including wrongful death, due to bleeding as a result of the alleged ingestion of Eliquis. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages." "In February 2017, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In Re: Eliquis (Apixaban) Products Liability Litigation MDL-2754) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PFIZER INC: Defending Against EpiPen Purchasers' Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against class action lawsuits related to EpiPen. Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan N.V., and Mylan N.V. Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who directly purchased or paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan N.V. violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan Pharmaceuticals regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2009 on behalf of the putative indirect purchaser class and since 2013 on behalf of the putative direct purchaser class. POPULAR INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in "Perez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a class certification hearing was scheduled for June 23, 2017, in the Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation. Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have recently been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company, Real Legacy Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies"). Plaintiffs essentially allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an estimated $400,000,000, plus legal interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A hearing on the request for preliminary injunction and other matters was held on February 15, 2017, as a result of which plaintiffs withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive relief. A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by all defendants, which was unopposed as of the date of the hearing, was denied with a right to replead following limited targeted discovery. On March 24, 2017, the Popular defendants filed a certiorari petition with the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking a review of the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss. Popular and MAPFRE recently asked the Court of Appeals to stay lower-court proceedings pending resolution of certiorari petitions, which the Court denied. Popular has asked the Court to reconsider such denial. A class certification hearing was scheduled for June 23, 2017. Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank. POPULAR INC: "Torres" Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------- Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, remains pending, Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain a reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their legal and contractual duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to dismiss and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6th was re- scheduled at the request of plaintiffs' counsel for May 17, 2017. Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank. POPULAR INC: "Camacho" Mortgage-Related Litigation Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., remains pending, Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel. Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate HAMP, HARP and other loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and TILA. For the alleged violations stated above, Plaintiffs request that all Defendants (over 20 separate defendants have been named, including all local banks), jointly and severally, respond in an amount of no less than $400,000,000.00. BPPR has not yet been served. Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank. POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Case in Discovery Phase ------------------------------------------------ Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in the case, Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., are in the discovery phase of the case. Popular Securities has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR, who was originally named in the complaint as well, was co- sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular Securities, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular defendants joined the opposition and motion filed by UBS. By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the SDNY containing virtually identical allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June 18, 2015. Oral arguments were held on the motions to dismiss in front of Judge Stein of the SDNY on October 14, 2016. On December 7, 2016, Judge Stein largely granted the motion to dismiss of BPPR and Popular Securities. Judge Stein's order ("Order") dismissed all claims against BPPR and all but two breach of contract claims against Popular Securities brought by one named plaintiff. Specifically, the Order dismissed claims stemming from purchases of the funds in 2005, 2007 and 2011 as time-barred by the Puerto Rico Uniform Securities Act. The Order also dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting of a breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a 2012 purchase for failure to state a claim. The Court granted Plaintiffs 21 days to amend the complaint for the 2012 claims only, but plaintiffs chose not to replead. The Order stated that the final two contract claims, which allege that Popular Securities failed to conduct a suitability analysis for the named plaintiff as required by the parties' contract would be allowed to proceed, because the Court was not prepared at the motion to dismiss stage, to conclude that the plaintiff was responsible for all investments enough to eliminate Popular Securities' obligations regarding suitability. The parties are currently in the discovery phase of the case. On March 24, 2017, the sole named plaintiff filed a Notice of Death, as a result of which plaintiff has 90 days to either find a substitute plaintiff or dismiss the complaint against Popular Securities. This term was slated to expire on June 22, 2017. Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank. POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------- Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Josefina Valle v. Popular Community Bank. PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, PCB customers, allege among other things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PCB violate New York's usury laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs. A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item processing policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to compel arbitration. In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an answer to second amended complaint and on April 7, 2016, it filed a notice of appeal on the partial denial of PCB's motion to dismiss. A mediation session held on September 21, 2016 proved unsuccessful. Discovery is ongoing. On January 3, 2017, PCB filed a brief with the Appellate Division in support of its appeal of the lower Court's prior order that granted in part and denied in part PCB's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Oral argument was held on April 4, 2017. On April 25, 2017, the Court issued an order denying PCB's appeal from the partial denial of the motion to dismiss. Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name of Popular Community Bank. PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Suit over CIBC Merger Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Privatebancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs have dismissed a class action lawsuit related to the proposed merger with CIBC. The Company said, "Following the original announcement of the Company's proposed merger with CIBC in June 2016, three putative class actions were filed on behalf of our public stockholders in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The three actions were consolidated and styled In re PrivateBancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 2016-CH-08949. All of the actions named as defendants the Company and each of its directors individually, and asserted that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction. Two of the complaints were also brought against CIBC and asserted that the Company and CIBC aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches. The actions broadly alleged that the transaction was the result of a flawed process, that the price is unfair, and that certain provisions of the merger agreement might dissuade a potential suitor from making a competing offer, among other things. The plaintiffs later filed a consolidated amended class action complaint adding the allegation that the Company's directors had failed to disclose material information regarding the merger in the proxy statement/prospectus." "The plaintiffs in the action agreed in principle not to pursue the action as a result of the inclusion of certain additional disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") in the proxy statement/prospectus contained in the registration statement filed by CIBC on October 31, 2016. On March 6, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"), and on March 7, 2017 the plaintiffs dismissed the action. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the three plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Action, without affecting the claims of the putative class, with leave to reinstate the action if the merger is not consummated on or before June 29, 2017. "Defendants in turn agreed to settle plaintiffs' demand for a mootness fee for $185,000, but only upon consummation of the merger. If the merger is not consummated on or before June 29, 2017 and the action is reinstated, the Settlement Agreement will be null and void, and plaintiffs may apply to the court for a mootness fee award, which defendants may oppose, in whole or in part. The Company continues to believe the complaints are without merit, there are substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted, and that proxy statement/prospectus contained in the registration statement first filed by CIBC on August 15, 2016 disclosed all material information prior to the inclusion of the Supplemental Disclosures." PTC INC: Settlement in "Crandall" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------- PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., No. 1:16- cv-10471, was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, ostensibly on behalf of purchasers of our stock during the period November 24, 2011 through July 29, 2015. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, alleges (among other things) that, during that period, PTC's public disclosures concerning investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice into U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act matters in China (the "China Investigation") were false and/or misleading. The parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit for an amount that is not material to our results of operations and the associated liability was accrued in our fiscal 2016 results. A joint stipulation of settlement received preliminary court approval on March 23, 2017 and a hearing to consider final approval was scheduled for July 13, 2017. "We cannot predict the outcome of that hearing," the Company said. The settlement provides for a settlement amount of $2,100,000. The Settlement Class means all Persons (except Defendants, members of the immediate family of any individual defendant, any entity in which any Defendant has more than a 50% ownership interest, or which any Defendant controls, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party) who purchased or otherwise acquired PTC common stock during the period from November 24, 2011 through July 29, 2015 inclusive, including any Persons who sold PTC shares short and then purchased shares to cover that short position during the Settlement Class Period, and excluding those Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with the instructions contained in and requirements of the "Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action" to be sent to the Settlement Class. Strategic Claims Services has been appointed as claims administrator. Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Jonathan Horne, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff: Joel A. Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: 617.398.5600 Fax: 617.507.6020 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com jason@blockesq.com joel@blockesq.com Counsel for Defendants PTC Inc., James Heppelmann, Jeffrey Glidden, Andrew Miller, Robert P. Schechter, Paul A. Lacy, Thomas Bogan, and Donald K. Grierson: Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Tel: 212.813.8800 Fax: 212.355.3333 E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinlaw.com - and - Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Tel: 617.570.1000 Fax: 617.523.1231 E-mail: ifriedmanboyce@goodwinlaw.com PTC is a global computer software and services company. RELIANT CAPITAL: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Etienne" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William F. Kuntz, II, grants preliminary approval to the Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit entitled ESTHER ETIENNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359-WFK-JO (E.D.N.Y.). The "Settlement Class" is defined as: All consumers nationwide who were sent collection letters and/or notices from Defendant attempting to collect an obligation owed to or allegedly owed to Touro College which state an amount due on which interest or other charges were accruing, but which failed to state that interest or other charges may be accruing on that amount. The "Class Claims" is defined as those claims arising from RCS's collection letters, wherein RCS sent consumers written collection communications, which included language that allegedly falsely represented the amount of the debt. Judge Kuntz appoints Esther Etienne as the Class Representative and appoints Ari Marcus, Esq., and Yitzchak Zelman, Esq., as Class Counsel. The Court also approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs that it be mailed to the last known address of the Settlement Class Members. The Class Administrator will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to Settlement Class members on or before August 4, 2017. Settlement Class members will have until September 18, 2017, to exclude themselves from or object to the proposed settlement. A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WXlB95lx RENTECH INC: Shareholder Lawsuits at Preliminary Stage ------------------------------------------------------ Rentech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that shareholder lawsuits are each at a preliminary stage. On February 22, 2017, Juan Las Heras, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a federal securities class action complaint on behalf of other shareholders of Rentech similarly situated to Mr. Heras, against Rentech, Inc., Jeffrey R. Spain, and Keith Forman in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Heras Lawsuit"). On February 23, 2017, Cheng Jiangchen , a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a federal securities class action complaint on behalf of other shareholders of Rentech, Inc. similarly situated to Mr. Jiangchen, against Rentech, Inc. and Keith Forman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Jiangchen Lawsuit"). On March 7, 2017, Carlos Raul Cuadra, a purported shareholder of Rentech, filed a federal securities class action complaint on behalf of other shareholders of Rentech similarly situated to Mr. Cuadra, against Rentech, Inc., Jeffrey R. Spain, and Keith Forman in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Cuadra Lawsuit", and together with the Heras Lawsuit and the Jiangchen Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). The Lawsuits allege, among other things, that in the Company's disclosure related to third quarter earnings and financial results in November 2016, the Company made false and misleading statements because they failed to disclose certain material facts regarding Canadian operations which facts were later disclosed in a press release issued by Rentech on February 21, 2017 (the "Press Release"). The Lawsuits also allege that Company officers named in the respective Lawsuits knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of materially false and misleading statements. The Lawsuits seek compensation for losses resulting from fluctuations in stock price of the Company in the period from November 2016 through February 2017, as well as attorney fees, expert fees and costs. The Lawsuits are each at a preliminary stage. The Company believes the Lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend against these claims vigorously. Rentech is a pure play wood fibre processing company with three core businesses: contract wood handling and chipping services, the manufacture and sale of wood pellets for the U.S. heating market and the manufacture, aggregation and sale of wood pellets for the utility and industrial power generation market. RESONANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Nov. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, John Devouassoux v. Resonant Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02054 (C.D. Cal.), Judge S. James Otero entered an order on July 13 granting preliminary approval of settlement and directing dissemination of notice to class members. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of the Settlement only, Lead Plaintiffs William E. Haskins and Brent Kaneshiro are appointed as Class Representatives and Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Kirby McInerney, LLP are appointed Class Counsel, and Westerman Law Corp. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP are appointed as Co-Liaison Counsel. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on November 20, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. The Court appoints the firm of JND Class Action Administration LLC as Claims Administrator. Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (MRWx). On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint, purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. In the consolidated second amended complaint, the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015." "On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. The court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made on February 26, 2015. The court denied our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in November and December of 2014 and January of 2015. "On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order clarifying its July 11, 2016 order on our motion to dismiss, making clear that the court's actual intent was to grant the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, while denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court has set a trial date of September 19, 2017. "The parties in the putative class action have reached a settlement that, if approved by the court, will fully resolve plaintiffs' claims and provide for the release of all claims asserted in the litigation. The settlement amount will be paid by our insurance carrier. "On March 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement." Resonant Inc. is creating an innovative software, intellectual property, or IP, and a services platform that it believes has the ability to increase designer efficiency, reduce the time to market and lower unit costs in the design of filters for radio frequency, or RF, front-ends for the mobile device industry. RIGHTSIDE GROUP: Faces "Paskowitz" Suit Over Sale to Donuts ----------------------------------------------------------- Susan Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rightside Group, Ltd., David E. Panos, Taryn Naidu, Diane M. Irvine, Robert J. Majteles, James R. Quandt, Richard C. Spalding, Donuts Inc., and DTS Sub Inc., Case No. 2:17- cv-00992 (W.D. Wash., June 30, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 1, pursuant to which Rightside Group, Ltd. will be acquired by Donuts Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, DTS Sub Inc., where stockholders of Rightside will receive $10.60 per share in cash. According to the complaint, Rightside filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Rightside stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Solicitation fails to disclose Rightside's financial projections: (i) net income; (ii) interest; (iii) income taxes; (iv) depreciation and amortization; (v) stock-based compensation; (vi) gains, losses, and expenses; and (vii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. 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. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Rightside'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. Rightside Group, Ltd. provides domain name registration and related value-added services to resellers and domain name registrants in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.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 ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Junks TRO Bid in Search & Seizure Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's application for Temporary Restraining Order in the case captioned Joseph Gale, Plaintiff, v. Corrigan O'Donohue, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 17-12172 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff Joseph Gale filed a Verified Class Action Complaint against City of Royal Oak Police Chief Corrigan O'Donohue and Royal Oak Police Officers Phillip Klinge, Mike Parmo, and Nathan Heppner. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that, Defendants unconstitutionally searched and seized Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims and state law claims against Defendants as a result of the allegedly unconstitutional search and seizure. Federal Rule of Civil procedure 65(b)(1) allows for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, without written or oral notice to the adverse party, only if: (1) specific facts in a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard; and (2) If the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. Here, neither of the requirements are met, the District Court held. First, Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer immediate and irreparable harm before Defendants can be heard. In fact, Plaintiff's complaint establishes that he has already been harmed the unconstitutional search and seizure is alleged to have already taken place. Temporary restraining orders are extraordinary remedies designed to protect the status quo pending final resolution of a lawsuit. Here, the relief Plaintiff seeks would essentially disrupt the status quo rather than preserve it, the District Court further held. Second, Plaintiff's attorney has failed to certify, in writing, whether any efforts have been made to give notice to Defendants and the reasons why notice should not be required. The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/RJ2t63 from Leagle.com Joseph Gale, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Benjamin Gale, MICHIGAN LITIGATION LAW, 2020 Hazel St., Birmingham, MI, 48009 Office (248) 850-5824 Fax (248) 856-0573 SANTEK WASTE: "Smith" Suit in Ala. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Smith, individually and on behalf of all current and former Waste Disposal Drivers v. Santek Waste Services, LLC, Santek Environmental, Inc., Santek Environmental of Alabama, LLC and Waste Services of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01113-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a full-service waste disposal company, managing publicly owned landfills and a fleet of trash collection vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick D. McMurtray, Esq. T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Dan Beasley, Esq. FRAZER PLC 1 Burton Hills Blvd. Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-0990 Facsimile: (866) 274-5384 E-mail: patrick@frazer.law roe@frazer.law dan@frazer.law - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com SEAVIEW RESTAURANTS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seaview Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Gladstones for Fish, California Beach Restaurants, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC667160 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley C. Gage, Esq. Terry M. Goldberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GOLDBERG & GAGE 23001 Victory Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 340-9252 Facsimile: (818) 340-9088 E-mail: Bgage@goldbergandgage.com - and - Jeffrey Spencer, Esq. SPENCER LAW FIRM 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 240-8595 Facsimile: (949) 240-8515 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KOLENKO and JACKIE BARHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVIS ONE, INC. d/b/a BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00183- AJS (W.D. Pa., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant has fallen far short of meeting its obligation to accurately communicate and fairly interact with homeowners, and has instituted policies and practices that actively undermine Defendant's duty to homeowners. Among other alleged violations, Defendant requires its employees to call a certain number of borrowers with delinquent or distressed loans per shift, and penalizes its employees in the event they do not meet this quota. Defendant Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services, Inc. is a mortgage servicer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. THE KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 792-6676 Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com SHAKE SHACK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Shake Shack Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04961 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, thereby denying them the full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations. Shake Shack Inc. operates Shake Shack restaurants as well as the Shake Shack website and advertises, markets, distributes, and sells food in the State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com - and - Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com SM ENERGY: "Lirette" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL LIRETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SM ENERGY COMPANY, Case No. 4:17-cv-02093 (S.D. Tex., July 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from SM under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, SM paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers a daily rate with no overtime pay and improperly classified them as independent contractors, Mr. Lirette alleges. SM is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company operating throughout the United States, including in Texas. To do so, SM employs oilfield personnel, like the Plaintiff, to carry out its work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com jbresler@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Roxberry" Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Roxberry, et. al, v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC. The Company said, "On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs filed a putative class action against us and our distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc. ("SLD") in the Eastern District Court of Tennessee. In late 2016, we converted SLD from a corporation into a limited liability company, or LLC. The case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in Tennessee, and nationwide certification for the Federal law collective action. The plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors and should be considered employees. We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against us. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit." SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Scheurer" Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Scheurer v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC. The Company said, "On December 8, 2016, plaintiff served a putative class action on behalf of all similarly situated IBOs in New Jersey against our distribution subsidiary, SLD. Plaintiff is a former IBO whose distribution agreement was terminated pursuant to the re-engineering and buyback of routes in New Jersey in 2011, resulting from the merger of Snyder's of Hanover, Inc. and Lance, Inc. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in New Jersey for alleged violations of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act relative to various terminations of the distributor agreement. We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against us. At this time, no demand has been made, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit." SNYDER'S-LANCE: Settlement in "Sparks" Case Pending --------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that in the case, Sparks v. Diamond Foods, Inc., a final fairness hearing on whether the proposed settlement, fees and costs should be approved was scheduled for July 5, 2017. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.sparksvdiamondfoods.com/ Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond Foods' violation of the California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act based on the same underlying violations. Diamond Foods timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The parties attended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached a tentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7 million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum of understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 24, 2017. A final fairness hearing on whether the proposed settlement, fees and costs should be approved was scheduled for July 5, 2017. SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Bensman" Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Bensman v. Diamond Foods, LLC et. al. Diamond Foods, LLC employee Della Bensman filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, LLC and Snyder's-Lance, Inc. on April 4, 2017 in San Joaquin Superior Court alleging the companies' violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges the companies' failure to provide third rest breaks when Plaintiff or other employees worked a shift over ten hours and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees in periods in which they worked more than ten hours and did not receive a third rest break. Plaintiff's Complaint also includes a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act and an unfair business practices claim pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code based on the same underlying violations. At this time, no demand has been made and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this lawsuit. SNYDER'S-LANCE: Late July's Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that Late July's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Evaporated Cane Juice Litigation remains pending. A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks, LLC on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The action accuses Late July Snacks, LLC of violating federal and state law by using the term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in the ingredients list on its products' labels. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges ECJ is not the common and usual name for the ingredient at issue and is misleading. The complaint attempts to state claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Late July Snacks, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim. On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels. On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016. On August 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance. Late July filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and a hearing on that motion was held on February 16, 2017. "At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit," the Company said. SPORT CARWASH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Minimum Wages, Arinah Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xavier Arinah, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Sport Carwash, LLC (aka "City Car Care"); Sport Carwash Homestead, LLC; Sport Carwash Properties, LLC; Sport Carwash Properties Homestead, LLC; Emilio Antelo; Domenico Prevete; Alexis Adan; and Ana M. Prevete, Case No. 1:17-cv-22552- KMM (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2017), alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all overtime pay and minimum wages they are owed, by requiring them to work off the clock and work over 40 hours per week without receiving "time and a half." Sport Carwash, LLC, also known as City Car Care, is an active Florida limited liability company, doing business in Doral, Florida. Sport Carwash Homestead, LLC, is an active Florida limited liability company, doing business in Coral Gables, Florida. Sport Carwash Properties, LLC, is an active Florida limited liability company, doing business in Doral, Florida. Sport Carwash Properties Homestead, LLC, is an active Florida limited liability company, doing business in Coral Gables, Florida. The Individual Defendants are officers, directors or owners of the Defendant Corporations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven F. Grover, Esq. FOR STEVEN F. GROVER, PA 507 S.E. 11 Ct. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 290-8826 E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Action Lawsuits Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against Contract Class Action Lawsuits. The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Penns ylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief." "The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or "whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390, which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed. "Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). "On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 2016, and we filed an answer to that pleading on March 25, 2016, generally denying the allegations therein and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses. "Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of "[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as 'Small Quantity' or 'SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste disposal good and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class." "On March 2, 2017, Stericycle filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification relating to the Court's class certification decision. That motion is currently pending while the parties consider whether there would be any benefit to engaging in mediation. Discussions through and overseen by a mediator have ensued between the parties, and the parties may determine to take further steps toward engaging in formal mediation or take other steps toward a consensual resolution of the matter. The case remains ongoing. "We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits." STERICYCLE INC: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the securities class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016." "On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant in plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and certain officers and directors. On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. Plaintiffs' response to that motion was due May 19, 2017. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit," the Company said. STERICYCLE INC: TCPA Lawsuit Underway ------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company still defends TCPA class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative class action, captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv- 4294 (N.D. Ill.), against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), asserting that the defendants called plaintiff and others in violation of that statute. Plaintiff challenges our use of pre-recorded messages that urge the owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for those products." "Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall, where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Stericycle's records, was the intended recipient of the call. The second class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall after such person had communicated to Stericycle that Stericycle did not have consent to make any such calls to their cellular telephone number. "On July 28, 2016, we answered the complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. Among the asserted defenses is the "emergency" exception to the TCPA, which exempts calls made to promote public health and safety. On December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case, we filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the basis of the "emergency" exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff responded to our motion by requesting additional discovery. The court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all of the requested discovery, and we have provided additional documents in response to that order. "On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an "emergency" exception) and certain additional allegations. We filed an opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the proposed amendments are futile and that we are entitled to summary judgment." Stericyle is a business-to-business services provider with a focus on regulated and compliance solutions for healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses. SUNOPTA INC: Pre-Class Certification Discovery Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Sunopta, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are engaged in pre-class certification discovery. On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed against Sunrise Growers, Inc. (then named Frozsun, Inc.) in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking damages, equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for alleged wage and hour violations. This case includes claims for failure to pay all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, waiting-time penalties, improper wage statements and unfair business practices. The putative class includes approximately 8,500 to 9,000 non-exempt hourly employees from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard, California. The parties are currently engaged in pre-class certification discovery. The Company is unable to estimate any potential liabilities relating to this proceeding, and any such liabilities could be material. The Company operates businesses focused on a healthy products portfolio that promotes sustainable well-being. The Company's two reportable segments, Global Ingredients and Consumer Products, operate in the natural, organic and specialty food sectors and utilize an integrated business model to bring cost-effective and quality products to market. SUNPOWER CORP: Aug. 31 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re Sunpower Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:16-cv-04710 (N.D. Cal.), The SunPower Investor Group on July 21 filed a Motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff and to approve its selection of Lead Counsel. JianFei Huang and Gregory Binkiewicz also filed a competing Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel. The Hon. Richard Seeborg will hold a hearing on August 31 to consider approval of the request. Responses are due Aug. 4. SunPower said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that two securities class action lawsuits were filed on August 16, 2016 and August 26, 2016, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities from February 17, 2016 through August 9, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The substantially identical complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. The complaints were filed following the issuance of the Company's August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance and generally allege that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On December 9, 2016, the court consolidated the cases and appointed a lead plaintiff. On March 31, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff. That motion is set to be heard on May 25, 2017. SunPower Corporation is a global energy company that delivers complete solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power plant customers worldwide through an array of hardware, software, and financing options and through utility-scale solar power system construction and development capabilities, operations and maintenance ("O&M") services, and "Smart Energy" solutions. TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Securities Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE R. CABRERA JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TAHOE RESOURCES INC., RONALD W. CLAYTON, C. KEVIN McARTHUR, ELIZABETH DIANNE McGREGOR, and MARK T. SADLER, Case No. 1:17-cv-05155 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Tahoe securities between April 3, 2013, and July 5, 2017, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tahoe, together with its subsidiaries, explores, develops, and operates mines in the Americas. The Company primarily produces copper, gold, silver, lead/zinc, and natural gas and petroleum, as well as precious metals assets. Formerly known as CKM Resources Inc., the Company changed its name to Tahoe Resources Inc. in January 2010. Tahoe is headquartered in Reno, Nevada. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, 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 - 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 TECOGEN INC: Bid for Expedited Discovery in "May" Action Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Tecogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that William May's motion for expedited discovery in his class action lawsuit has been denied. On or about February 6, 2017, Tecogen was served with a Verified Complaint by William C. May ("May"), individually and on behalf of the other shareholders of American DG Energy ("ADGE"). The complaint names Tecogen as a defendant, along with ADGE, John Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Charles T. Maxwell, Deanna M. Petersen, Christine Klaskin, John Rowe, Joan Giacinti, Elias Samaras, and ADGE.Acquisition Corp. The action was commenced in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 17-0390. The complaint alleges that the proposed Merger is subject to certain conflicts of interest; that the Exchange Ratio undervalues ADGE's outstanding shares; that Tecogen's registration statement on Form S-4 contained material omissions and that Tecogen aided and abetted ADGE's board of directors breaching of their fiduciary duties. Among other things, the complaint also alleged that ADGE's board failed to protect their stockholders by failing to conduct an auction or market check and that ADGE's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger proposal. The plaintiff is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions related to the Merger, rescissory damages, compensatory damages, accounting, and other relief. The May action is in its earliest stages. The state court denied May's motion for expedited discovery. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, and May has not yet filed a motion for injunctive relief. Tecogen Inc., Company produces commercial and industrial, natural- gas-fueled engine-driven, combined heat and power (CHP) products that reduce energy costs, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and alleviate congestion on the national power grid. TECOGEN INC: "Vardakas" Action in Earliest Phase ------------------------------------------------ Tecogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action lawsuit by Lee Vardakas is in its earliest phase. On or about February 15, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Lee Vardakas ("Vardakas"), individually and on behalf of other shareholders of ADGE, naming Tecogen as a defendant, along with ADGE, John N. Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Benjamin Locke, Charles T. Maxwell, Deanne M. Petersen, Christine M. Klaskin, John Rowe, Joan Giacinti, Elias Samaras, Tecogen.ADGE Acquisition Corp., and Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC. Among other things, the complaint alleges (1) the merger is the result of a flawed and conflicted sales process and that the Exchange Ratio undervalues ADGE's outstanding shares and (2) Tecogen's registration statement on Form S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (a) the financial analyses performed by ADGE's financial advisor, (b) financial projections for ADGE and Tecogen, and (c) conflicts of interest in the sales process. The complaint also asserts that defendants violated Section 14(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, as a result of the alleged materially incomplete and misleading information; that the directors and officers of ADGE have control person liability for the alleged material misstatements and omissions pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; that the directors of ADGE breached their fiduciary duties to ADGE's stockholders related to the merger, including that they failed to take steps to obtain the highest possible consideration for ADGE shareholders in the transaction; that Mr. John Hatsopoulos and Mr. George Hatsopoulos, acting in concert and as a group, as controlling shareholders of ADGE, violated their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of ADGE; and that Mr. George Hatsopoulos, Tecogen.ADGE Acquisition Corp., and ADGE's financial advisor aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors and officers of ADGE. Vardakas is seeking to certify a class action, a preliminary injunction, damages, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The Vardakas action is in its earliest phase. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, and Vardakas has not yet filed a motion for injunctive relief. Tecogen Inc., Company produces commercial and industrial, natural- gas-fueled engine-driven, combined heat and power (CHP) products that reduce energy costs, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and alleviate congestion on the national power grid. TELIGENT INC: 10 Putative Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that to date, ten putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Teligent Inc. along with co- defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. The actions have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from any of the defendants from October 1, 2012 (or later in some complaints) until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix prices for generic econazole, in violation of federal antitrust laws or state antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for generic econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against Teligent. All of these cases are in their initial stages. The court is currently assessing briefing schedules for motions to dismiss. "Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims," the Company said. Teligent, Inc. and its subsidiaries, is a specialty generic pharmaceutical company. TITANIUM CONSTRUCTIONS: Court Certifies Class in "Samaniego" ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Class Certification in the case captioned SAMANIEGO, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. TITANIUM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendant(s), No. 16 Civ. 1113 (LGS)(S.D.N.Y.); however, Defendant's Motion for Decertification is denied as moot. Plaintiff Charles Gucciardo and a putative class of current and former employees Defendants Titanium Construction Services, Inc., and Anthony O'Donnell move for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs also move to amend the Complaint to dismiss Named Plaintiff Vinicio Samaniego. Defendants cross-move to decertify the conditionally certified class, and request that costs be imposed on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, in which they asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Complaint specifically alleges that Defendants have a policy and/or plan to violate FLSA and NYLL, which involves willfully and purposefully failing to maintain proper and complete timesheets and payroll records. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants violated FLSA and NYLL by paying employees by check for hours worked up to 40 hours per week, and by cash for hours worked above 40 hours per week, at the employees' regular hourly wage rate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that plaintiffs may sue on behalf of a class where: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted because he has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Rule 23's requirements are met: 1. Numerosity. Because Plaintiffs have established that the proposed class includes at least 50 individuals and joinder is impracticable, the numerosity requirement is satisfied. 2. Commonality. Plaintiffs have shown commonality. Commonality is satisfied where there are questions of law or fact common to the class. A question of law or fact [is] common to the class if the question is capable of class-wide resolution which means that its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. 3. Typicality and Adequacy. Defendants contend that Named Plaintiff lacks credibility, in part, because of his arrests for drug possession, his possession of narcotics both before and while working for Titanium, and his termination for dealing drugs on the job. The inquiry into the representative's personal qualities is not an examination into their moral righteousness, but rather an inquiry directed at improper or questionable conduct arising out of or touching upon the very prosecution of the lawsuit. Even if Defendants' assertions regarding Named Plaintiff's indiscretions are true, they do not touch upon the prosecution of the lawsuit, which at its core is about Defendants' alleged policy of failing to pay overtime wages. At most they may call [Plaintiffs'] credibility into question but they do not cast a shadow of doubt so severe as to disqualify him from serving as class representative. Accordingly, typicality and adequacy are satisfied. 4. Ascertainability. Here, the proposed class includes all individuals that Titanium employed as construction workers at New York City job sites since February 2010, and is sufficiently definite such that no subjective criteria is required to determine the class' contours. Where the court found that ascertainability was satisfied in a wage and hour case, the class can clearly be ascertained by objective documentation, such as Defendants' employee payroll records and wage statements." For this reason, and because ascertainability is not disputed, this requirement is met. 5. Predominance. Plaintiffs have alleged and proffered evidence, that construction workers employed by Titanium were subject to a common, illegal, overtime compensation policy. If Plaintiffs prevail in showing the existence of a common policy at trial, each of the individual class members likely will prevail on their respective claims against Defendants. 6. Superiority. Potential class members are aggrieved by the same policies, the damages suffered are small relative to the expense and burden of individual litigation, and some potential class members are currently employed by the defendants." Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified class is denied as moot because Plaintiffs have withdrawn the consent to join forms of all Opt-In Plaintiffs. Further, Defendants cite no legal authority to support their request for the imposition of costs on Plaintiffs, and may not move for costs in a sur-reply. Defendants' motion for costs is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint to remove Vinicio Samaniego, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, are granted. Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified FLSA collective action is denied as moot. A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/5ZqupM from Leagle.com. Vinicio Samaniego, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 943-9080 Vinicio Samaniego, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Lee Genova, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10004 Phone Charles Gucciardo, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Alison Lee Genova, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Titanium Construction Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brett Reed Gallaway -- bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, Lee Scott Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin and Stern, LLP & Ralph R. Hochberg -- rhochberg@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin and Stern, LLP. Anthony O'Donnell, Defendant, represented by Brett Reed Gallaway, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, Lee Scott Shalov, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP & Ralph R. Hochberg, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP. TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Marketed Aloe Vera Products, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Shaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC667291 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), arises from the false, deceptive, and misleading label of Trader Joe's Aloe Vera Gel. The Product's label describes the Product as "Aloe Vera Gel" containing "Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice", when in reality the Product contains no detectible amount of Aloe Vera at all. Trader Joe's Company owns and operates grocery stores throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL, LLP 707 Wishire Blvd., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (844) 622-6469 Facsimile: (213) 622-6019 E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com TRANSENTERIX INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bankley" Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Transenterix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the motions to dismiss the case, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, is awaiting the court's decision. In an Order dated June 7, Chief Judge James C. Dever III held that the Court's Order for Discovery Plan dated May 19, vacated; and all discovery and other proceedings in this action, including the completion of a FRCP 26() conference, the submission of a FRCP 26(f) discovery plan, and the submission of Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, are stayed during the pendency of Defendants', motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. On June 2, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the "Initial Complaint"), against the Company and two of its executive officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under the securities laws. On August 30, 2016, the court appointed Randall Clark, Samir Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association, and the North Underhill Cemetery Association as the lead plaintiffs in the Initial Complaint, and also provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Initial Complaint. On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery, and adds claims against certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock in its 2016 ATM Offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements related to the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal securities laws. The Amended Complaint seeks class certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, class certification of a subclass of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock in connection with the 2016 ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and April 19, 2016, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. As of January 23, 2017, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and deemed submitted to the court for decision. TRANSENTERIX INC: "Maine" Class Action Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- Transenterix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Maine class action has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action. On March 3, 2017, a different stockholder filed another putative class action complaint on behalf of the Company, captioned Scott Maine vs. Paul LaViolette, et al., in the Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 17CV002590) (the "Maine Action"). The complaint in the Maine Action is substantially similar to the complaint in the Pikal Action, asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief against largely the same group of defendants named in the complaint in the Pikal Action. On April 11, 2017, the court entered an order staying the Maine Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Unpaid Toll Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ARON ROSENZWEIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-00227 (D.N.J.). Plaintiff brings a class action against TSI alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 (FDCPA), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA). This matter arises from an unpaid toll that Plaintiff incurred through the use, or failure thereof, of an E-ZPass transponder. Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contractual relationship with E-ZPass where he used an extension of credit to pay tolls in E-ZPass approved toll lanes. According to the Plaintiff, TSI mailed a "dunning" letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect $55.50 allegedly owed to MTA Bridges and Tunnels E-ZPass. The amount consisted of $5.50 due to an unpaid toll or tolls as well as a $50.00 administrative fee. The letter states, "Current Balance Due: $55.50" and that your account balance may be periodically increased due to the addition of accrued interest or other charges as provided in the agreement with the original creditor or as otherwise provided by law. Standard of Review According to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court should dismiss a complaint when it fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. To succeed on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a 'debt' as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt. The District Court held that, here only the third element is at issue. Specifically, Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC on the basis that the unpaid toll violation, and the resulting toll violation fee, are not consumer debts under the FDCPA. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's collection letters treated the debt as one governed by the FDCPA throughout its collection efforts, so the FDCPA should apply. The Court disagrees. The proper inquiry is whether the obligation in question is a debt as defined by the FDCPA, not whether a defendant happens to call it a debt. merely because a defendant calls itself a debt collector" does not mean that it is a debt collector under the FDCPA; the proper inquiry is whether the defendant meets the definition of debt collector as defined by the act. Surely, collection of a property tax would not be converted into a "debt" under the FDCPA merely because the collector called it one. The same is true here. Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the TCCWNA for, among other reasons, failing to plausibly plead that Defendant is a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee as required by the Statute. Plaintiff counters that Defendant is either a creditor or bailee. The Court disagrees and finds that Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a claim under the TCCWNA. To state a claim under the TCCWNA, a plaintiff must plead the following four elements: (1) the plaintiff is a consumer; (2) the defendant is a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee; (3) the defendant offers the plaintiff a contract or gives or displays any written notice or sign; and (4) the contract, notice, or sign includes a provision that violates any legal right of a consumer or responsibility of the seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee. Plaintiffs' allegations support the theory that Defendant acted as a debt collector, and not a creditor or a bailee. Defendant sought to collect an unpaid toll from Plaintiff. Defendant did not sell, lease, lend or bail any money or property to Plaintiff' as required by the TCCWNA. Plaintiff does not state a claim under the TCCWNA. Defendant's motion is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/G8ywZ4 from Leagle.com. ARON ROSENZWEIG, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ZEMEL, Zemel Law LLC. 70 Clinton Ave., Suite 3, Newark, NJ 07114-2012 ARON ROSENZWEIG, Plaintiff, represented by FRED M. ZEMEL, THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, represented by AARON RAPHAEL EASLEY -- aeasley@sessions.legal.com -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC. TRG CUSTOMER: Cronk Seeks Compensation for Off-the-Clock Work ------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Cronk and Jefferson Barbosa, Individually, and on behalf other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc., d/b/a IBEX Global Solutions, Case No. 1:17-cv-00059 (M.D. Tenn., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid straight time, minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses of the action and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, including claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract under Tennessee Law. TRG Customer Solutions operates as IBEX Global Solutions operating in five countries including the U.S. Plaintiffs worked as call center agents. They claim compensation for off-the-clock work rendered, specifically when they are not signed in into the system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com TRIBUNE MEDIA: Duffy Challenges Proposed Merger With Sinclair ------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT DUFFY, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, BRUCE ALLEN KARSH, PETER M. KERN, PETER E. MURPHY, CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ROSS B. LEVINSOHN, and LAURA R. WALKER, Case No. 1:17-cv-00919-UNA (D. Del., July 7, 2017), challenges the proposed merger between Tribune and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. On May 8, 2017, Tribune and Sinclair jointly announced that they had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger under which each outstanding share of Tribune common stock will be exchanged for $35 in cash and 0.23 shares of Sinclair, representing an implied value of $43.50 per share. Tribune, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified media and entertainment company. The Company was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Chicago Illinois. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com TRICO BANCSHARES: Settlement of Bankers' Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement of lawsuits by two personal bankers remains pending. On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to represent a class of current and former branch employees with the same or similar job duties, employed by the Bank within the State of California during the preceding four years. On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint expanding the class definition to include all current and former non-exempt branch employees employed by the Bank within the State of California at any time during the period of September 15, 2010 to the entry of judgment. The Bank responded to the First Amended Complaint by denying the charges and the parties engaged in written discovery. The parties then engaged in non-binding mediation during the third quarter of 2016. In addition to this, on January 20, 2015, a then-current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against the Bank and the Company in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage statement violations. As part of the Complaint Plaintiff is seeking to represent a class of current and former exempt and non- exempt employees who worked for the Company and/or the Bank during the time period of December 12, 2013 to October 21, 2016. The Company and the Bank responded to the First Amended Complaint by denying the charges and engaging in written discovery with Plaintiff. The parties then engaged in non-binding mediation of the action during the third quarter of 2016 as well. As part of the mediations, which took place concurrently, the Bank agreed in principal to settle the two matters. In connection with the settlement and in consideration of a full release of all claims raised in both the actions, the Bank has agreed to pay up to $1.9 million though the actual cost of the settlement will depend on the number of claims submitted by the members of the purported classes. As a result, the Bank estimates the actual cost of the settlement may be approximately $1,450,000, and recorded such estimate. The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the members of the purported classes. Provided the parties can agree on the language to be included in the settlement agreement and then enter into a stipulation regarding the settlement, court hearings will be scheduled where the court will consider the terms of the settlement. But it should be noted there are no assurances the court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such a stipulation. Neither the Company nor its subsidiaries are a party to any other pending legal proceedings that are material, nor is their property the subject of any other material pending legal proceeding at this time. All other legal proceedings are routine and arise out of the ordinary course of the Bank's business. None of those proceedings are currently expected to have a material adverse impact upon the Company's and the Bank's business, their consolidated financial position nor their operations in any material amount not already accrued, after taking into consideration any applicable insurance. TRINITY COURIERS: Faces "Green" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY COURIERS, INC. and TRINITY COURIERS OF HOUSTON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02102 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by employing Green and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed." Trinity Couriers offers courier services. Trinity Couriers employed Green as a courier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 U-HAUL CO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Reservation Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- Trang Nguyen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U-Haul Co. of New York and Vermont, Inc., U-Haul International, Inc. and Amerco, Case No. 1:17-cv-03947 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017), seeks redress for the deceptive manner in which the Defendants have marketed and continue to market their reservation guarantee policy, which states "When you make a truck or trailer reservation, we guarantee to provide you with the equipment size, location and pick up time, as agreed. Should you not receive the equipment size, location and pick up time you agreed to, U-Haul will pay you $50" and which the Defendants have refused to live up with. The Defendants operate a moving equipment rental business on the East Coast and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces "Sacchi" Suit Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- John Sacchi and Stephen Simoni, Individually and on behalf of all others v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-04853-ES- JAD (D.N.J., June 30, 2017), is an action for damages, restitution, statutory damages, punitive damages, sanctions, interest, court costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief for United's contract breaches of the agreement executed on its website that states that no change fee would be required to subsequently use the ticket's value towards another United flight within a year but Plaintiffs were charged money in order to utilize the original flight's value or will be charged money when utilizing the original flight's value. The Defendants operate a business headquartered in Illinois that market and sell airline travel throughout the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Simoni, Esq. SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES c/o JARDIM, MEISNER & SUSSER, P.C. 30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 201 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (917) 621-5795 E-mail: StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Claims vs. FHFA, Treasury Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeals cases captioned PERRY CAPITAL LLC, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF INVESTMENT FUNDS FOR WHICH IT ACTS AS INVESTMENT MANAGER, Appellant, v. STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ET AL., Appellees. No. 14-5243, Consolidated with Nos. 14-5254, 14-5260, 14-5262 (D.C. App.), the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, affirms the judgment of the district court denying the institutional plaintiffs' claims against the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Treasury alleging arbitrary and capricious conduct and conduct in excess of their statutory authority because those claims are barred by 12 U.S.C. Section 4617(f). In 2007-2008, the national economy went into a severe recession due in significant part to a dramatic decline in the housing market. That downturn pushed two central players in the United States' housing mortgage market -- the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation -- to the brink of collapse. Congress concluded that resuscitating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was vital for the Nation's economic health, and to that end passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ("Recovery Act"), Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654. Under the Recovery Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") became the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In an effort to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac afloat, FHFA promptly concluded on their behalf a stock purchase agreement with the Treasury Department, under which Treasury made billions of dollars in emergency capital available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in exchange for preferred shares of their stock. In return, Fannie and Freddie agreed to pay Treasury a quarterly dividend in the amount of 10% of the total amount of funds drawn from Treasury. Fannie's and Freddie's frequent inability to make those dividend payments, however, meant that they often borrowed more cash from Treasury just to pay the dividends, which in turn increased the dividends that Fannie and Freddie were obligated to pay in future quarters. In 2012, FHFA and Treasury adopted the Third Amendment to their stock purchase agreement, which replaced the fixed 10% dividend with a formula by which Fannie and Freddie just paid to Treasury an amount (roughly) equal to their quarterly net worth, however much or little that may be. A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA's and Treasury's alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula. The Court holds that the stockholders' statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act's strict limitation on judicial review. The Court also rejects most of the stockholders' common-law claims. Insofar as the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders' common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency's immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act's limitation on judicial review, the Court holds. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. Section 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court affirms the judgment of the district court denying the institutional plaintiffs' claims against the FHFA and Treasury alleging arbitrary and capricious conduct and conduct in excess of their statutory authority because those claims are barred by 12 U.S.C. Section 4617(f). With respect to the class plaintiffs' claims and those of the Arrowood and Fairholme plaintiffs, the Court affirms the judgment of the district court except for the claims alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding liquidation preferences and the claim for breach of the implied covenant with respect to dividend rights, which claims the Court remands to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2017, Order is available at https://is.gd/ETnmGN from Leagle.com. Theodore B. Olson -- tolson@gibsondunn.com -- argued the cause for Perry Capital LLC, et al. With him on the briefs were Douglas R. Cox -- dcox@gibsondunn.com -- Matthew D. McGill, mmcgill@gibsondunn.com -- Charles J. Cooper -- ccooper@cooperkirk.com -- David H. Thompson -- dthompson@cooperkirk.com -- Peter A. Patterson -- ppatterson@cooperkirk.com -- Michael H. Barr -- michael.barr@dentons.com -- Richard M. Zuckerman -- Richard.Zuckerman@dentons.com -- Sandra Hauser -- Sandra.Hauser@dentons.com -- Janet M. Weiss -- weiss.janet@dorsey.com -- and Brian W. Barnes, Esq. 1523 New Hamspshire Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 202-220-9600 -- and -- Drew W. Marrocco, Esq. 1301 K Street, NWSuite 600, East Tower Washington, DC 20005-3364 Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq., argued the cause for American European Insurance Company, et al. With him on the briefs were Matthew A. Goldstein, David R. Kaplan, and Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. -- gjarvis@ktmc.com Thomas P. Vartanian -- thomas.vartania@dechert.com -- Steven G. Bradbury -- steven.bradbury@dechert.com -- Robert L. Ledig -- Robert.ledig@dechert.com -- and Robert J. Rhatigan -- robert.rhatigan@dechert.com -- were on the brief for amici curiae the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Association of Mortgage Investors, Mr. William M. Isaac, and Mr. Robert H. Hartheimer in support of appellants. Thomas F. Cullen, Jr. -- tfcullen@jonesday.com -- Michael A. Carvin -- macarvin@jonesday.com -- James E. Gauch -- jegauch@jonesday.com -- Lawrence D. Rosenberg -- ldrosenberg@jonesday.com -- and Paul V. Lettow -- pvlettow@jonesday.com -- were on the brief for amici curiae Louise Rafter, Josephine and Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. in support of appellants and reversal. Jerrold J. Ganzfried, and Bruce S. Ross -- bruce.ross@hklaw.com -- were on the brief for amici curiae 60 Plus Association, Inc. in support of reversal. Eric Grant was on the brief for amicus curiae Jonathan R. Macey -- jonathan.macey@yale.edu -- in support of appellants and reversal. Thomas R. McCarthy -- info@consovoymccarthy.com -- was on the brief for amici curiae Timothy Howard and The Coalition for Mortgage Security in support of appellants. Myron T. Steele -- msteel@potteranderson.com -- was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Individual Freedom in support of appellants. Michael H. Krimminger -- mkrimminger@cgsh.com -- was on the brief for amicus curiae Investors Unite in support of appellants for reversal. Howard N. Cayne 555 12th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA argued the cause for appellees Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al. With him on the brief were Paul D. Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com -- D. Zachary Hudson,600New Jersey Avenue N.W., Washington D.C. 20001 Michael J. Ciatti -- mciatti@kslaw.com -- Graciela Maria Rodriguez -- gmrodriguez@kslaw.com -- David B. Bergman -- david.bergman@apks.com -- Michael A.F. Johnson -- michael.johnson@apks.com -- Dirk C. Phillips -- dirk.phillips@apks.com -- and Ian S. Hoffman -- ian.hoffman@apks.com Mark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee Steven T. Mnuchin. With him on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alisa B. Klein, Abby C. Wright, and Gerard Sinzdak, Attorneys. Dennis M. Kelleher was on the brief for amicus curiae Better Markets, Inc. in support of appellees and affirmance. Pierre H. Bergeron was on the brief for amicus curiae Black Chamber of Commerce in support of neither party. Colleen J. Boles, Assistant General Counsel, Kathryn R. Norcross, Senior Counsel, and Jerome A. Madden, Counsel, were on the brief for amicus curiae The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in support of FHFA and affirmance. USANA HEALTH: Defending Against Class Action in Utah ---------------------------------------------------- Usana Health Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is defending against a shareholder class action. The Company said, "On February 13, 2017, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, with the plaintiff, Chi Wah, alleging that the Company failed to disclose that (i) the Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper reimbursement practices in China, (ii) these practices constituted violations of the FCPA, (iii) as such, the Company's China revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and unlikely to be sustainable, and (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, was likely to subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny. The lawsuit names as defendants the Company; our former Co-Chief Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and our Chief Leadership Development Officer, Paul A. Jones (formerly our Chief Financial Officer)." "On behalf of the plaintiff, and a putative class of purchasers of USANA stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the plaintiff asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The Company believes that the action is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted." Usana develops and manufactures high-quality, science-based nutritional and personal care products that are distributed internationally through a network marketing system, which is a form of direct selling. VITA-MIX CORP: $1.6MM Class Deal in "Gooding" Has Prelim OK ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for Central District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification of the class and preliminary approval of class settlement in the case captioned RAINOLDO GOODING and NADEEN GOODING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VITA-MIX CORPORATION and KELLY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03898-ODW(JEMx)(C.D. Calif.). This is a wage-and-hour class action suit against Defendants Vita- Mix Corporation and Kelly Services, Inc. Plaintiffs, as proposed class members, work for or worked in the past for Vita-Mix, and they allege that Vita-Mix misclassified their employee designations and failed to pay them overtime wages and other benefits. Plaintiffs now move for class certification and preliminary approval of that settlement. Both Defendants have filed notices of non-opposition to the settlement. Plaintiffs define the proposed classes as follows: California Class: All individuals who worked for Defendants in a covered position in California any time from June 3, 2012, to March 13, 2017. Non-California Class: All individuals who worked for Defendants in covered positions in any of the non-California Rule 23 states (states outside California under whose laws Plaintiffs have alleged state law claims in the proposed First Amended Complaint) any time from June 3, 2013, to March 13, 2017. FLSA Class: All individuals who worked for Defendants in covered positions in the United States at any time from June 3, 2013, to March 13, 2017, and who are not members of either the California class or the non-California Rule 23 class. A "covered position" for purposes of all three sub-class encompasses the positions of Sales Representative or Demonstrator. The parties estimate that there are 1150 members in the proposed class (across all three sub-classes). The parties' settlement provides for a maximum, non-reversionary settlement amount of $1,600,000 to resolve Plaintiffs' claims on a class and collective basis. Plaintiffs' motion for settlement approval states that the average payment to class members is estimated at approximately $952. The settlement amount will be reserved and paid out as follows: (1) Calculation of Payment: Class members will be paid if they worked for Defendants in the positions of Sales Representative or Demonstrator. The amount will be based on respective numbers of California individual workweeks and/or non-California workweeks during the relevant time periods. (2) Opting In: Members of the FLSA class will need to opt in (pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)). Members of the other two classes will not need to submit a claim form in order to receive a settlement payment. (3) Excluded from this settlement class are any members of an earlier settlement class with final approval in a prior action, entitled Thomas v. Vita-Mix Corp., in San Joaquin County state court who have not worked for Defendants since August 27, 2015. If class members from the prior action have worked for Defendants since then, they can be a part of this class settlement, but their class period will begin August 28, 2015. (4) Release of Claims: Members of the California and Non- California subclasses who do not opt out will release their state law claims, and FLSA opt-in class members will release their FLSA claims in addition to any applicable state law claims. No class member will release any FLSA claims unless he or she affirmatively opts in and joins the settlement. Under Rule 23(a), the plaintiff must show that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court finds that all of the requirements for class certification are met. The court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and direct notice to the class if the settlement: '(1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval. Plaintiffs assert in their motion for preliminary approval that the agreement is "the result of arm's-length negotiations by counsel," and Defendants have not opposed this contention. Under these circumstances, the Court is convinced that the settlement negotiations were adequate. After reviewing the terms of the settlement, the Court determines that there are no obvious deficiencies, the settlement does not unfairly give preferential treatment to named plaintiffs, and it falls within the range of possible approval. The Court notes no deficiencies in the amount and allocations of settlement funds. The Court concludes that the incentive awards here fall within these guidelines. There are only two named plaintiffs (out of roughly 150 class members) who are receiving a total incentive award of $10,000, which constitutes only a tiny fraction of the maximum settlement amount. The Court concludes that the release "adequately balances fairness to absent class members and recovery for plaintiffs with defendants' business interest in ending this litigation with finality. After reviewing this procedure, as well as a proposed copy of the Notice of Collective and Class Action Settlement that will be sent to potential members of the California, Non-California and FLSA classes (SA Exs. B-1 and B-2, ECF No. 54-1), the Court is satisfied that notice here is the best practicable under the circumstances. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification of the class and preliminary approval of class settlement. A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is available at https://is.gd/JTYtS2 from Leagle.com Rainoldo Gooding, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. Blakely, -- sblakley@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC. Rainoldo Gooding, Plaintiff, represented by Fletcher W.H. Schmidt -- fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC, John H. Crouch, IV, Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC,3109 Carlisle Street, Dallas, Texas 75204-1194 pro hac vice, Paul Keith Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup -- Haines Law Group APC & Christine Ann Hopkins, -- christine@tremainartaza.com -- Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC. Nadeen Gooding, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. Blakely, Haines Law Group APC, Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Haines Law Group, APC, John H. Crouch, IV, Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC, pro hac vice, Paul Keith Haines, Haines Law Group APC, Tuvia Korobkin, Haines Law Group APC & Christine Ann Hopkins, Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC. Vita-Mix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lauri A. Damrell -- ldamrell@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & David P. Fuad -- dfuad@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. Kelly Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura Jean Maechtlen -- lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chantelle C. Egan, -- cegan@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatam.seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Shireen Yvette Wetmore -- swetmore@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & David D. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. One Century Plaza, Suite 3500 2029 Century Park, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Suit Underway ---------------------------------------- Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251)(filed July 26, 2016). Litigation includes Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv- 1251)(filed July 26, 2016), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to represent the a class of plans whose assets are invested in VRIAC "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds." Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by charging unreasonable fees and setting its own compensation in connection with stable value products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("VRIAC") is a stock life insurance company domiciled in the State of Connecticut. VRIAC and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, "the Company") provide financial products and services in the United States. VRIAC is authorized to conduct its insurance business in all states and in the District of Columbia and in Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. WARNER NELSON: 9th Cir. Vacates Atty Fees Award in ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the Order of the District Court granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and vacating awards of attorneys fees in the appeals cases captioned RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WARNER NELSON; WILLIAM BECK, JR.; BRIAN BISH; KLAAS A. DEBOER; MICHAEL G. MARSH; ROCKY SHARP; RICHARD BAMBERGER; DENNIS CALLIES; CLIF DAVIS; TIM DONOVAN; HARRY THOMPSON; GARY YOUNGHANS, in Their Capacity as Trustees of the Ibew Pacific Coast Pension Plan; CLINT BRYSON; MICHAEL CHURCH; MICHAEL DOYLE; GREG ELDER; GLEN FRANZ; GARY GONZALES; CARL D. HANSON; PATRICK POWELL; GARY PRICE; SCOTT STEPHENS; ROGER TOBIN; GRANT ZADOW, Defendants-Appellants. RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross- Appellee, v. WARNER NELSON; WILLIAM BECK, JR.; BRIAN BISH; KLAAS A. DEBOER; MICHAEL G. MARSH; ROCKY SHARP; RICHARD BAMBERGER; DENNIS CALLIES; CLIF DAVIS; TIM DONOVAN; HARRY THOMPSON; GARY YOUNGHANS, in their capacity as Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Plan; CLINT BRYSON; MICHAEL CHURCH; MICHAEL DOYLE; GREG ELDER; GLEN FRANZ; GARY GONZALES; CARL D. HANSON; PATRICK POWELL; GARY PRICE; SCOTT STEPHENS; ROGER TOBIN; GRANT ZADOW, Defendants- Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Nos. 15-35414, 15-35457, 15-3569 (9th Cir.), and Remanded the case for further proceedings. In May 2008, the Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund learned that the Fund would soon enter critical status under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. In response, the Trustees amended the Pacific Coast Fund Pension Plan twice in Amendments 14 and 24 and began withholding at least $1.00 per hour from all employer contributions to improve the Plan's funding status. Richard Lehman filed a putative class action against the Trustees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Lehman alleged that the Trustees breached the Pension Plan's terms, violated ERISA sections 204 and 305, and breached their fiduciary duties by withholding $1.00 per hour from his employer contributions without providing an accrued benefit. The district court granted Lehman's motion for summary judgment, in part, and ruled that he was entitled to the withheld contributions under the terms of the Pension Plan. After the parties stipulated to a class definition, the district court certified the class and awarded damages, attorneys' fees, and costs to the plaintiffs. The Trustees appeal the summary judgment order, an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce or clarify the order, and the damages award. The plaintiffs cross-appeal, seeking alternative relief under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) if the court reverses the district court's grant of summary judgment under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B). The plaintiffs also appeal the district court's determination of a reasonable hourly rate for the attorneys' fees award. The Ninth Circuit vacated the damages award for withholdings under Amendment 24's formal Rehabilitation Plan because the complaints did not provide adequate notice to the Trustees that Amendment 24 was at issue. The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) the district court's ruling that the Trustees abused their discretion by interpreting Amendment 14 to conflict with Article 5 of the Pension Plan; (2) the award of damages for the $1.00 hourly withholding in Amendment 14 pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B); and (3) the district court's ruling that the plaintiffs have the right to enforce the Pension Plan's terms, including the provisions that incorporate the Reciprocal Agreement. The Ninth Circuit declines to reach the issues on cross-appeal, vacate the attorneys' fees award, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A full-copy text of the Ninth Circuit's July 14, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/uO5WEp from Leagle.com. Defendants-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants Warner Nelson, et al., are represented by: Seth Floyd, Esq. (argued) Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Michael A. Urban, Esq. The Urban Law Firm 4270s. Decatur Blvd., Suite A-9 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Phone: 702-968-8087 Richard J. Birmingham -- richbirmingham@dwt.com -- (argued), Christine Hawkins -- christine.hawkins@dwt.com -- and Joseph P. Hoag -- josephhoag@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Plaintiff- Appellant Richard Lehman. WEIBO CORP: Goldsmith Sues Over Non-disclosure, Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Goldsmith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Weibo Corporation, Gaofei Wang and Herman Yu, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04728 (D. N.J., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that Weibo lacks a requisite internet audio/video program transmission license, Weibo was posting certain commentary programs with content in violation of Chinese government regulations on its site, Weibo operates as a social media platform for people to create, distribute, and discover Chinese-language content. The State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television of the People's Republic of China ordered Weibo to stop streaming political videos that were not in line with government regulations. On this news, shares of Weibo fell $4.71 per share or over 6% from its previous closing price to close at $72.25 per share on June 22, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. Weibo is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and its principal executive offices in Chaoyang District, Beijing 100027, People's Republic of China. Weibo's securities are traded on the NASDAQ. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Weinstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. WEINSTEIN 199 Main Street, 4th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 997-2205 WENDY'S COMPANY: Torres and FI Cases Pending in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The Wendy's Company continues to defend the Torres and FI cases, the company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company has been named as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to safeguard customer credit card information and failed to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. Jonathan Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Torres case"). The operative complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers, or in the alternative, statewide classes of consumers for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee, as well as statewide classes of consumers under those states' consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws. Certain financial institutions have also filed class actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "FI cases"), which seek to certify a nationwide class financial institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly impacted. In the Torres case and the FI cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Torres case was denied in part and granted in part with leave to amend; the plaintiffs then filed the operative complaint referenced above. The Company's motion to dismiss in the FI case was denied. The Company filed its answer in the Torres case in April 2017 and expects to file its answer in the FI case during the second quarter of 2017. The Wendy's Company is the parent company of its 100% owned subsidiary holding company, Wendy's Restaurants, LLC ("Wendy's Restaurants"). The principal 100% owned subsidiary of Wendy's Restaurants is Wendy's International, LLC and its subsidiaries ("Wendy's"). Wendy's franchises and operates Wendy's(R) quick- service restaurants throughout North America (defined as the United States of America ("U.S.") and Canada). Wendy's also has franchised restaurants in 29 foreign countries and U.S. territories. XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Faces "Trejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Trejo; Marisol Trejo; Obdulia Julie Cortes; Vilma De Jesus Alvarenga Carranza; and those similarly situated v. Xclusive Staffing, Inc.; Xclusive Management, LLC d.b.a. Xclusive Staffing; Xclusive Staffing of Colorado, LLC; Diane Astley; and Westin Dia Operator, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01602 (D. Col., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a staffing agency in Westminster, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. David Seligman, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1535 High St., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 Facsimile: (303) 957-2289 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org ********* 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 * * *