/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 21 Headlines 226 WILD GINGER: Delivery Personnel Seeks OT Pay, Retained Tips 3M CO: Says Peterson Air Force Base PFCs Health Claims No Merit ACT II: June 6 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Appeal Process Postponed AK STEEL: Faces Nelson's ERIS Class Action in Michigan AMPLIFY SNACK: Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach Violations Probed ANTHEM COMPANIES: Given Until Feb. 9 to Answer "Jones" FLSA Suit APPLE INC: Faces "Aburos" Class Action in Florida APPLE INC: Faces "LaNasa" Class Suit in Louisiana APPLE INC: Faces "Batista" Class Action in California APPLE INC: Faces "McInnis" Class Suit in Mississippi APPLE INC: Faces "Burton" Class Suit in Missouri APPLE INC: Class Actions Over iPhone Battery Issue Rise to 30 APPLE TEN FL: "Black" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ATBCOIN LLC: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Likely to Approve LIBOR Class Settlement BAZAARVOICE INC: King Files Suit Over Marlin Merger Deal BEST DOCTORS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, "Thomas" Suit Says BETWEEN THE BREAD: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA BIG PHARMA: Newton County Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action BMW NORTH AMERICA: "Barrera" Suit Underway in N.D. California BMW NORTH AMERICA: Parker Claims Dismissed BONNEVILLE BILLING: Litigation and Discovery Plan Due Feb. 20 BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: "Dhuy" Suit Asserts Gender Discrimination BUFFALO WILD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Arby's Merger CALIFORNIA: Fire Prevention Fee Class Action Dismissed CAMERON COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Suit Threat Over Topless Bar Case CANADA: More WRPS Female Officers Allege Discrimination CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Calls on Sexual Harassment Oversight CAPCO PIZZA: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA CARTER DISTRIBUTING: Hill Moves for FLSA Collective Action Cert. CORECIVIC INC: Must Face Investors' Securities Class Action COREY HILL: Refused to Make Condo Repairs, Decataldi Says CRYPTO CO: Feb. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set DELTIC TIMBER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action EI DUPONT: Cohen Milstein, Susman Godfrey Tapped as Class Counsel EMPIRE BIG: Up to 900 Plaintiffs Join Fraud Class Action FIAT CHRYSLER: Law Firm Launches Class Action Over Used Cars FIAT CHRYSLER: Uconnect Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action FLINT, MI: Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in Water Crisis Case FLINT, MI: Judge to Nominate Levin as Water Crisis Case Mediator FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Certification Sought FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Analyzes Seven Factors in Interns' Case GARDENS OF FOUNTAIN: Jones' Bid for Class Certification Denied GERMANY: Jan. 28 Hearing Set for Nama Genocide Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Sexual Harassment Class Action Pending GOOGLE INC: Former Engineer Files Discrimination Class Action GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Urged to Review Privacy Case Settlement GURU NANAK AUTO: "Ventura" Suit Pending in E.D. New York HARVARD COLLECTION: "Gamble" Class Cert. Bid Now Due March 2 HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Foster-Care Payments HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over GDI Engine Defects INTEL CORP: Suits Pile Up Over Melton, Spectre Security Holes INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action in California Over CPU Defects INTEL CORP: Class Action Mulled in Korea Over CPU Security Flaws INTEL CORP: Securities Law Firms Mull Class Suits Over Chip Flaw JUST FOR LAUGHS: Rozon to Challenge Sexual Assault Class Action KENYA POWER: Class Action Mulled Over Incorrect Electric Billing LG CHEM: May 8 Lithium Batteries Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Plaintiffs Dismiss Derivative Actions LOBLAWS COS: $25 GC Won't Impact Consumers' Class Action Right LOBLAW COS: Judge Favors Consumers in Price-Fixing Case LTD FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Bordeaux" Suit Granted MARATHON PETROLEUM: Settles Storage Tank Explosion Class Action MDL 2800: Credit Union Suit over Consumer Data Breach Underway MDL 2800: Feb. 9 Hearing on Bids to Appoint Case Leaders MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Blanchard" Suit in S.D. Illinois MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Answer to "Hobbs" TCPA Suit Due Feb. 16 MEMPHIS, TN: Special Master Appointed in Untested Rape Kits Case MICHIGAN: Court Denies Class Certification in "Jones" Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Grapples with Gender Salary Inequality Lawsuits MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Class Certification in Gender Bias Case MISSISSIPPI FARM: Faces Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Suit MONKEY CAPITAL: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set MONSANTO COMPANY: Lashock Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NASA SERVICES: "De Leon" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway NCCA: Antitrust Class Action Hearing Set NEW YORK: Crime Drops After Stop-and-Frisk Policy Halted NORTH HIGHLAND: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Boose" Suit Says NORTHERN CONCRETE: Morgan's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Denied NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Sued Over Dilapidated Housing Complex OREGON: Discovery in Class Suit Against Prison Doctors Underway PALATINE, IL: Collins Ruling Ammunition for Defendants PARKWAY TROPICS: Former Exotic Dancer Files Wage Class Action PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: $2.9B Settlement Sets Records PPG INDUSTRIES: Union Retirees Get ERISA Class Certification PRATT & WHITNEY: Acreage Residents Seek Cancer Case Class Status PRATT & WHITNEY: Expert Disputes Cancer Cluster Hurt Home Values REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action RJ REYNOLDS: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in Graham Case ROYAL BANK: Vange Consulting Files Class Action Over Fees SACRAMENTO BASKETBALL: April 12 Case Conference in "Smith" Suit SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Wickham Securities Class Action Settled SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied SCANA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over V.C. Summer Project SETJO LLC: Files Answer to "Willis" Suit in N.D. Ohio SIGNET JEWELERS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Vacated SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING: May Face Suit Over TV License Fees SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Okays $15-Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement STARBUCKS CORP: Court Tosses Latte Under-filling Class Action SYNERGY GLOBAL: Failed to Pay "Hollender" Overtime, Commissions TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Action Not Certified TIME INC: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Action in New York TOWN SPORTS: "Santos" Suit Goes Back to New Jersey State Court TUESDAY MORNING: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Driver Service Fees UNITED STATES: ACLU Plans to Support Pro-Abortion Candidates VU FOOD SERVICES: "Carrion" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages W AVIATION: Dean Seeks to Send Notice to Service Technicians WALMART CORP: Shoppers Sue Over Shell Egg False Advertising WV AMERICAN: Feb. 1 Water Crisis Settlement Approval Hearing Set * AARP Wants Tech Cos to End Age Bias on Facebook Recruitment Ads * Class Action Rulings Impact Farm, Ranch Businesses * Consumer Protection Bill Includes Grounds for Class Actions * Issue on Whether ICOs Implicate Securities Laws Up for Debate * Ont. Class Action Law Review Must Consider Environmental Claims ********* 226 WILD GINGER: Delivery Personnel Seeks OT Pay, Retained Tips --------------------------------------------------------------- Jianhui Hu, Zhizhong Liu, Jinquan Yin, and Xing Xing, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 226 Wild Ginger Inc. (d/b/a Wild Ginger), 51 Wild Ginger Inc. (d/b/a Wild Ginger), Wild Ginger NY Inc. (d/b/a Wild Ginger), Yong Qiu, Shan You Chen (a/k/a Hsan You Chen) and Fei Chen, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10161, (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours compensation, illegally-retained tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate a chain of restaurants in New York serving Asian fusion cuisine named "Wild Ginger." Plaintiffs were employed as delivery personnel. They use their own vehicles to deliver and incurred expenses that were not reimbursed, thus rendering their pay below mandated minimum wage rates, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com 3M CO: Says Peterson Air Force Base PFCs Health Claims No Merit --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS News reports that for 25 years, Dan Cruz delivered mail at the Peterson Air Force Base and drank the water. Then came cancer -- thyroid, prostate, testicular -- he said never before seen in his family. "I'm the only one that's been diagnosed with cancer not once, not twice, but three times. People on my route . . . cancer has come upon them and sometimes stage 4," Mr. Cruz told CBS News correspondent Barry Petersen. The cause could be firefighting foam used since the 1970s at Air Force bases and airports across the country, something meant to save lives that may have harmed them instead. The foam contains highly fluorinated chemicals, known as PFCs. It is suspected of causing some cancers and underweight births. Mica Ullum has lived near Peterson Air Force Base for a quarter century, in a town where the foam has contaminated the water. Sadie, one of three children born to Mica, was born premature, weighing a mere one pound six ounces. She spent 94 days in the neonatal intensive care unit. Mica's four other pregnancies ended in miscarriage or death. "With what you know now, do you think any of this has to do with the effects, potential effects, of what's in the water?" Mr. Petersen asked. "Possibly, yeah," Ms. Ullum responded. "Why?" "Because if you continue to pump poison into your body, something has to respond," Ms. Ullum said. Mr. Peterson is one of 190 Air Force bases where PFCs may have leached in the ground and surrounding areas. One study based on EPA's test results shows as many as six million people may be exposed nationwide to PFCs in their drinking water at higher levels than the EPA now deems safe. But the more than 60,000 people in the communities near Peterson Air Force Base may be America's hardest-hit. The EPA said anything over 70-parts per trillion could be dangerous. Some water they tested here had over 1,300 parts per trillion. Additionally, according to a proposed class action lawsuit filed against the foam manufacturers, it has caused serious medical conditions in hundreds of residents. One foam manufacturing company, 3M, said there is no merit in the health claims, adding they "sold these products with instructions regarding their safe use and disposal. . . acted responsibly at all times . . . and will vigorously defend this lawsuit." But the Air Force has responded, spending more than $4 million to provide bottled water and filtration systems. Air Force firefighters now train with water, and for real fires it uses a different fluorinated foam, still containing another type of PFCs, but believed to be safer. But some of those who have studied the new foam say the Air Force may have traded one evil for another. "Our chemical regulation system makes us all guinea pigs . . . because chemicals are assumed safe until proven guilty and they go out into the world . . . and we are exposed to them with no health information," said Arlene Blum, researcher at the University of California Berkeley. Mark Correll is deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for environment safety and infrastructure. "Is it possible that you've replaced this with something that could still have a long-term problem down the road?" Mr. Petersen asked him. "I've got to rely on the Environmental Protection Agency and on the health agencies . . . to tell us whether or not that's going to be a problem in the future," Mr. Correll said. But for now, "We're going to treat it as if it were any other hazardous material . . . so that we can prevent contamination in the ground water and in the soil by cleaning it up immediately," Mr. Correll said. "Why would you do that if it's deemed to be safe?" Mr. Petersen asked. "What we're saying is these still are chemicals that have potentially toxic side effects," Mr. Correll said. Mr. Cruz worries more illnesses may lie ahead because of something as ordinary as a drink of water. "If someone had told you this 25 years ago and you had never had any of this water, do you think you'd be healthy now and not going through these cancers?" Mr. Petersen asked him. "I think I would have been perfectly healthy. I don't I don't believe that I would've gotten any of the of the cancers at all," Mr. Cruz said. This area will be part of a federal study of contamination near military bases around the country, which will hopefully outline just how bad and just how far this contamination may have reached into the lives of millions of people. [GN] ACT II: June 6 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- You Could Be Eligible to Receive a Payment from a Class Action Settlement if you Purchased or Sold Jewelry from Act II Jewelry, LLC Formerly Known As lia sophia The following statement is being issued by Siprut PC regarding the lia sophia Class Action Settlement. A Settlement has been reached in a lawsuit alleging that Act II Jewelry, LLC f/k/a lia sophia ("Act II") breached its promise to provide a lifetime warranty, and that Act II harmed its sales advisors by misappropriating their customer information and making false statements to those sales advisors concerning the closing of its business. Act II denies these allegations and denies any wrongdoing. The Court has not decided who is right. The settlement covers Class Members of one or more of the following Settlement Classes which include all individuals in the United States who: Customer Class -- purchased jewelry from Act II between June 23, 2011, and December 1, 2014; Sales Advisor Class -- sold at least $250 of jewelry for Act II between January 1, 2014, and August 17, 2014; New Sales Advisor Class -- purchased initial starter kits from Act II between August 1, 2014, and December 1, 2014. In total, the classes contain approximately 4 million members. If the settlement is approved, a settlement fund of $6.7 million dollars will be created for distribution among those Class Members who submit Valid Claims, attorneys' fees, incentive awards, and settlement administration expenses. To get a payment class members must submit a claim online or by mail by April 9, 2018. Customer and Sales Advisor Class Members' cash payments will depend on the amount of jewelry purchased or sold from Act II, and the total number of Valid Claims filed. New Sales Advisor Class Members will receive a full reimbursement of the amount paid for his or her initial starter kit, which ranged from $99 to $149, subject to a cap on total recovery for the class. Other Options. Class members that do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement's terms or who want to pursue their own case against Act II, must Opt Out of the Settlement by April 9, 2018, and will not get a payment from the Settlement. If a class member does not Opt Out, they may Object to the Settlement by April 9, 2018. The detailed notice available on the Settlement Website explains how to Opt Out or Object. The Court will hold a Hearing on June 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to one third of the $6.7 million Settlement Fund after settlement administration expenses (approximately $1,800,000) and incentive awards of $2,500-$7,500 to the Class Representatives. The Motion for Fees will be posted on the website after it is filed. You may appear at the hearing, at your own expense, but you don't have to. For more information, call or visit the website. This is only a summary of the information related to the Settlement. For detailed information, about the Settlement, class member rights, and the benefits that may be available, visit: www.LiaSophiaSettlement.com or call 1-844-412-1945. [GN] AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Appeal Process Postponed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that the silicosis class action appeal proceedings have been postponed until further notice, the Chamber of Mines has announced. Attorneys representing all appellants and all respondents involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in respect of the silicosis and tuberculosis class action litigation have written to the Registrar of the SCA asking that the appeal proceedings be postponed until further notice. The SCA has granted approval for the postponement. The joint letter explains that good faith settlement negotiations between the Occupational Lung Disease Working Group and claimants' legal representatives have reached an advanced stage. In view of that, all parties consider it to be in the best interests of judicial economy and the efficient administration of justice that the matter, currently scheduled to be heard from March 19 to March 23, be postponed. The Working Group represents African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye Stillwater. Richard Spoor Inc, Abrahams Kiewietz Inc and the Legal Resources Centre represent the class members. [GN] AK STEEL: Faces Nelson's ERIS Class Action in Michigan ------------------------------------------------------ Terry Nelson, Robert Secrete, Kevin Ford and Thomas Lareau, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class, The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Of America (UAW) and its Local 600, Plaintiffs, v. AK Steel Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17- cv-14209 (E.D. Mich., December 28, 2017), seeks relief for breach of a collective bargaining agreement as well as declaratory and other appropriate relief under Section 301 of the Labor- Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs are retirees from Severstal North America, Inc. and/or Severstal Dearborn, LLC (which was acquired by AK Steel in September 16, 2014) and are affiliated with International Union and UAW Local 600 labor organizations. AK Steel, as new owner, is to be the plan sponsor and administrator of their vested lifetime health care benefit plan. AK Steel allegedly and unilaterally modified the plan and the retiree health care benefits of members and claimed that some or all of the plan benefits were not vested. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa M. Smith, Esq. MCKNIGHT, CANZANO, SMITH, RADTKE & BRAULT, P.C. 423 N. Main Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: (248) 354-9650 Email: lsmith@michworkerlaw.com - and - Stuart M. Israel, Esq. LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C. 306 S. Washington, Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: (248) 398-5900 Email: israel@legghioisrael.com AMPLIFY SNACK: Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach Violations Probed ---------------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C., is investigating potential claims against the board of directors of Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. ("Amplify Snack" or the "Company") (NYSE: BETR) concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the Company's efforts to sell the Company to The Hershey Company in a transaction valued at approximately $1.6 billion. If you own shares of Amplify Snack and would like to learn more about this class action or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299. You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rm@maniskas.com Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Amplify Snack will receive $12.00 in cash for each share of Amplify Snack common stock they own. Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of Amplify Snack or not acting in the Company's shareholders' best interests in connection with the sale process. RM LAW, P.C. -- http://www.maniskas.com-- is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. [GN] ANTHEM COMPANIES: Given Until Feb. 9 to Answer "Jones" FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHAN FLEMENS and GEORGE JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, WAI YUN AU, MICHAEL WILLIAMS, and NORMAN FORBES, individually, the Plaintiffs, v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., THE ANTHEM COMPANIES INDIANA, AMERIGROUP NEW YORK, LLC, d/b/a AMERIGROUP, and AMERIGROUP IPA OF NEW YORK, LLC, d/b/a AMERIGROUP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07088- AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case is a collective action brought on behalf of Defendants' current and former Recreational Vehicle Drivers. The Defendants have operated an insurance company throughout the United States, including New York. Amerigroup Defendants were acquired by Anthem Defendants on December 24, 2012. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other similarly situated RV Drivers to drive Defendants' RVs to specific locations throughout New York. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated RV Drivers' workday typically consisted of: picking up Defendants' RVs and driving it to the required location, remaining at the location during the workday while Marketing Representatives complete enrollments, and then returning Defendants' RV to the required destination. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated RV Drivers' overtime pay for all hours worked over forty per workweek. The Defendants made unlawfully deductions from Plaintiffs' wages by forcing them to pay for parking tickets. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on Jan. 5, 2018, granted the Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer requesting an extension of time, until February 9, 2018, for defendants Amerigroup IPA of New York, LLC, Amerigroup New York, LLC, The Anthem Companies Indiana, The Anthem Companies, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. On Jan. 3, 13, 15 and 23, 2018, Wai Yun Au, Stephan Flemens, Norman Forbes, George Jones, Jose Rodriguez and Michael Williams filed a "CONSENT to become party in a collective action".[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA Collective: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Marijana Matura, Esq. Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499 9100 APPLE INC: Faces "Aburos" Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------- Yael Aburos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 24712, (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices; restitution of illegally acquired money; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. The complaint says Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone. Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard B. Rosenthal, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD B. ROSENTHAL, P.A. 1581 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1408 Miami, FL 33129 Tel: (305) 992-6089 Email: rbr@rosenthalappeals.com - and - Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-2800 Email: srosenthal@podhurst.com APPLE INC: Faces "LaNasa" Class Suit in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------- Alfred LaNasa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 17878, (E.D. La., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone, says the complaint. Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN 12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq. Robert W. Gifford, Esq. 1717 Main Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 974-8000 Facsimile: (972) 474-1750 Email: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com rgifford@johnstonpratt.com APPLE INC: Faces "Batista" Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------- Aniledis Batista and Paul Sohayegh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07355, (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone. Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan M. Smith, Esq. BROWN NERI, SMITH & KHAN LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 Email: nate@bnsklaw.com - and - Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Chantal Khalil, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 298-3329 Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com ckhalil@fbfglaw.com APPLE INC: Faces "McInnis" Class Suit in Mississippi ---------------------------------------------------- Neill McInnis and J. Scott Archer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00358, (S.D. Miss., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone. Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq. Robert W. Gifford, Esq. 1717 Main Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 974-8000 Facsimile: (972) 474-1750 Email: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com rgifford@johnstonpratt.com APPLE INC: Faces "Burton" Class Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------ Kim Burton and William Ellis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07355, (W.D. Mo., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices; restitution of illegally acquired money; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone. Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Werts, Esq. Bradford B. Lear, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107 Columbia, MO 65203 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Facsimile: (573) 875-1985 Email: lear@learwerts.com werts@learwerts.com sowers@learwerts.com APPLE INC: Class Actions Over iPhone Battery Issue Rise to 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Patently Apple reports that three new Class Action lawsuits were filed against Apple from San Jose, California on Jan. 8. There have been 8 filed from San Jose alone since December 22, and 13 in total from Northern California collectively. The total of Class Actions filed against Apple on this one issue has now risen to 30. The first of three cases filed against Apple on Jan. 8 was from Scott Grillo. At one point in the segment of the complaint titled 'Nature of the Action' Mr. Grillo stated: "On December 20, 2017, in response to widespread speculation about the impact of iOS 10 on iPhone performance, Apple confirmed users' long-held suspicions and finally admitted that its latest iOS software updates deliberately slowed the performance of iPhones. The effect of Apple's actions was to 1) purposefully reduce device performance with time, and 2) deprive consumers of material information concerning the cause of the decline in performance of their iPhone. Causes for Action Count 1: Breach of Implied Contract Count 2: Trespass to Chattel Count 3: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Count 4: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law Count 5: Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act [GN] APPLE TEN FL: "Black" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------- Fredericka V. Black and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Apple Ten Florida Services Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-62571 (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks unpaid regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Apple Ten Florida Services, Inc. operates Residence Inn Dania Beach, also known as Residence Inn Fort Lauderdale Airport and Cruise Port located at 4801 Anglers Avenue, Dania Beach, Florida 33312, where Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt full-time night shift, hotel employee from approximately September 2015, to October 17, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that management intentionally manipulated time records in order to lower her working hours and to avoid the payment of overtime hours. Black regularly and consistently worked in excess of 40 hours every week period with overtime, says the complaint. Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ATBCOIN LLC: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased ATB Coins pursuant to ATBCOIN LLC's Initial Coin Offering between approximately June 12, 2017 and September 15, 2017. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sbm-cc/atbcoin or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that ATBCOIN violated the Securities Act of 1933, by engaging in interstate commerce for the purposes of offering, selling, or delivering unregistered securities. The complaint alleges that ATB Coins constitute securities by virtue of defendants' assertions in marketing and promotional materials that the ATB Coins were an "investment" that would generate "profit" for purchasers. If you purchased ATB Coins pursuant to the ICO you have until March 12, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN] BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Likely to Approve LIBOR Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the two law firms leading antitrust litigation for over-the-counter investors in financial instruments pegged to the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate unquestionably deserve hosannas for reaching two proposed class action settlements totaling $250 million. The Libor litigation, which accuses more than a dozen of the biggest banks in the world of colluding to manipulate the benchmark rate, has been as complex as any class action in memory. The case, which dates back to 2011, was devastated by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's dismissal of antitrust claims, then miraculously revived by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but only after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for an interlocutory appeal. Class counsel from Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey reached their first proposed settlement, a $120 million agreement with Barclays, in March 2016. Judge Buchwald granted preliminary approval to the Barclays deal in December 2016. Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey moved for approval of a second settlement, $130 million with Citigroup, last August. The firms have requested a total of $50 million in fees in the two settlements. Investors in the Libor over-the-counter class have, in the main, been quite satisfied with the settlements. When Judge Buchwald held a hearing on final approval of the Barclays agreement last October, only two objectors raised qualms about the deal -- a sign, Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey said, of the "phenomenal result" they achieved. (Judge Buchwald has not yet ruled on the motion for final approval.) The Citi settlement, which is scheduled for a preliminary approval hearing on Jan. 23, has prompted only one objection, from the Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority. There's little doubt Judge Buchwald will approve the Barclays and Citi Libor settlements, given the overwhelming acquiescence of the thousands of investors in the class, many of them extremely sophisticated institutions. That said, it's notable that both the lone objector to the Citi settlement and one of the two final objectors to the Barclays deal were represented not by typical objectors' firms nor even by a typical plaintiffs' firm. The Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority and Barclays objector Maimonides Medical Center are represented by Arent Fox, a Washington, D.C., firm probably best known for regulatory and defense work. In fact, the Arent Fox partner working on the Virgin Islands and Maimonides objections, Lester Jacobowitz, isn't a litigator at all -- he's a finance lawyer who got into Libor because of a longstanding client relationship with Maimonides. (Arent Fox counsel Jennifer White, a litigator, is working with Jacobowitz.) "This is not meant to be a new specialty," Mr. Jacobowitz said. "The objections are specific to this case. We believe the classes are not being adequately compensated." The Virgin Islands' objection, a 13-page letter to Judge Buchwald, explained that theory. (Arent Fox's objection for Maimonides to the Barclays settlement, by contrast, was a short letter that Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey called "vague and conclusory.") The objection asserts that class counsel have not disclosed any estimate of the total damages to the class from Libor manipulation, and that based on Arent Fox's inquiry, it seems no damages estimate exists. Arent Fox said that its analysis shows damages to be at least $23 billion. In that context, the Virgin Islands objection said, a $130 million settlement with Citigroup is inadequate. Class counsel justified the proposed settlement by calling it an ice-breaker and highlighting Citi's promise to cooperate with the ongoing case against other Libor banks. Arent Fox, in the Virgin Islands objection, said the Barclays Libor settlement already broke the ice. As the second bank to settle, the objection said, Citi should not get a big discount. Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey were due to respond on Jan. 9 to the Virgin Islands objection. They will surely argue, as they did in response to the Maimonides objection to the Barclays settlement, that there are thousands of sophisticated investors in the Libor class and almost none of them have expressed concerns about the settlement. To that, Mr. Jacobowitz said that many public funds and not-for- profits, still reeling from the 2008 financial crisis, aren't paying attention to the Libor litigation and don't realize they're affected by the settlements. According to Arent Fox, class members' failure to object to the proposed settlements does not necessarily reflect investors' approval of the deals. Reuters' Frankel said "That's an argument I suspect you wouldn't hear from lawyers who regularly litigate class actions, in which objections, or a paucity thereof, are widely accepted as a barometer of class members' attitudes about a proposed settlement. Can Mr. Jacobowitz, as a class action outsider, see a truth insiders have become blind to?" [GN] BAZAARVOICE INC: King Files Suit Over Marlin Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------- Harold King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bazaarvoice, Inc., Thomas J. Meredith, Gene Austin, Craig A. Barbarosh, Krista Berry, Steve H. Berkowitz, Jeffrey Hawn and Allison M. Wing, Defendants., Case No. 17-cv-01866, (D. Del., December 28, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger between Bazaarvoice and certain affiliates of Marlin Equity Partners, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bazaarvoice shareholders stand to receive $5.50 in cash and stock for each share of Bazaarvoice stock they own for a total value of approximately $521 million. Plaintiff claims that the merger consideration appears inadequate in light of the company's recent financial performance and prospects for future growth and that documents omit detailed line items of the financial metrics of adjusted earnings, free cash flow and unlevered free cash flows. Bazaarvoice develops software solutions for the retail, manufacturing, finance, pharmaceutical, travel and media industries. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com BEST DOCTORS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, "Thomas" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth A. Thomas MD, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Doctors, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 12563 (D. Mass., December 28, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized fax-based marketing activities, as well as an award of actual and statutory damages, along with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant delivers health services to employers, health insurance providers and financial services. It sends fax messages to doctors encouraging them to join its network of healthcare providers, usually without consent of the recipient. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 580-8270 Fax: (617) 583-1905 Email: erica@mirabellaLLC.com - and - Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Email: brichman@edelson.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498.8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com BETWEEN THE BREAD: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. BETWEEN THE BREAD 55TH INC., BETWEEN THE BREAD 40TH INC., BETWEEN THE BREAD II, LTD., BETWEEN THE BREAD LLC., BTB EVENTS & CELEBRATIONS, INC., d/b/a BETWEEN THE BREAD, RICKY EISEN, LEONARD EISEN and SEAN MARTIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09541-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours, tips improperly misappropriated by Defendants, award equal to all surcharges illegally retained by Defendants, unpaid call-in pay, statutory penalties, liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all tipped employees (including delivery workers, caterers and food preparers) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them the proper minimum wage for all hours worked and an overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff says his claims are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered because Defendants willfully violated their rights by failing to pay their minimum wages in the lawful amount. Furthermore, Defendants were not entitled to take any tip credits under the FLSA because (i) Defendants failed to properly provide notice to all tipped employees that Defendants were taking a tip credit, (ii) management retained the mandatory service charge without providing notice to customers that management was sharing a portion of the mandatory service charges, (iii) management retained tips earned by employees in addition to the service charge, and (iv) tipped employees spent at least 20% of their time in non-tipped activities. The Defendants serve grab-and-go option serving a changing menu of health-focused breakfast, sandwiches and lunch plates.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 BIG PHARMA: Newton County Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Alice Queen, writing for The Citizens, reports that the Newton County Board of Commissioners has set a spate of work sessions early in the new year to discuss a variety of issues, including the county's possible participation in two class action lawsuits. County commissioners are considering taking part in class action lawsuits addressing the opioid crisis as well as the recovery of 911 fees from telecommunications providers. The scheduled work sessions and topics are as follows: * Feb. 6, 6 p.m. -- Updated employee policy and procedure manual * Feb. 13, 6 p.m. -- Budget updates from appropriations * Feb. 20, 6 p.m. -- U.S. Highway 278 CID update At the Jan. 16 work session, commissioners will hear a presentation from attorneys representing other counties in Georgia in an effort to recover 911 fees that were allegedly underpaid by telecommunications companies. Cobb and Gwinnett filed suit in December 2016 against both phone and Internet companies, claiming underpayment of 911 fees. According to a report by the National Association of Counties, the counties claim they are owed $50 million in 911 fees from BellSouth, Earthlink, Verizon and other phone services providers. According to media reports, states across the country have filed similar lawsuits. Under Georgia law, telecommunication companies are required to bill and collect $1 or $1.50 a month for each line or pathway capable of dialing 911 -- whether a landline or wireless. The money collected is supposed to be returned to local governments to help fund emergency 911 centers. Newton County Manager Lloyd Kerr said commissioners will hear a presentation on the class action lawsuit in order to determine if they want to participate and to get a better picture of how much money is involved. The county would not be required to pay for legal representation unless damages are recovered. During the second half of the Jan. 16 meeting, commissioners will discuss options available to the county regarding an opioid epidemic-related class action lawsuit. Commissioners in Rockdale and other Georgia counties have already retained legal counsel in the lawsuit that seeks to recoup costs related to the opioid crisis -- for things such as substance abuse programs, insurance/Medicaid expenses, lost productivity, foster care costs, Narcan training and supply and increased law enforcement. Claims made against the manufacturers of opioid pain medications include deceptive business practices, false advertising, public nuisance, violations of social services/Medicaid law, fraud and unjust enrichment. Mr. Kerr said commissioners have already heard a presentation from a representative of the Napoli Shkolnik law firm in New York. "The board needs to have a discussion about who they might want to represent them," said Mr. Kerr. "Evidently, there is more than one firm that is part of this . . . I have heard there are some Georgia firms that were doing the same thing, so I think the board wants to talk a little about that before they make a decision." All of the work sessions are scheduled to take place in the commissioners board room at the Historic Courthouse. [GN] BMW NORTH AMERICA: "Barrera" Suit Underway in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Juan Barrera, the Plaintiff, v. BMW North America, LLC; BMW AG; Audi AG; Andi of America Inc; Audi of America LLC; Bentley Motors Limited; Daimler Aktiengesellschaft; Mercedes-Benz US International; Mercedes-Benz USA; Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC; Dr. Ing h.c.F Porsche Ag; Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.; Volkswagen A.G. and Volkswagen Group of America Inc, the Defendants, remains pending in California. The venue of the case was transferred from District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv-05550, on October 6, 2017, to the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District, Case No. 3:17-cv-05789-CRB, (N.D. Cal.). The case is assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer for all further proceedings. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant manufacturers deprive the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons of the benefits of open, robust competition in the market of German Luxury Vehicles. Plaintiff states that he purchased a new German Luxury Vehicle, specifically a Mercedes-Benz 2500 Sprinter, manufactured by Daimler AG. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have shared competitive and sensitive information and have agreed and colluded concerning technology, costs, suppliers, market, emissions equipment and other competitive attributes of their luxury vehicles. Defendants' conspiracy has prompted competition investigations in the United States and elsewhere. The plaintiff contends that the Defendants and their co- conspirators have entered into and have and are engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Further, the Defendants and their co-conspirators have and are engaged in a continuing contract, combination or conspiracy with respect to the sale of German Luxury Vehicles in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce and in violation of the various state antitrust and other statutes. The contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize, and/or maintain at artificially supra-competitive levels prices for German Luxury Vehicles in the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4599 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 Email: christopher.dalton@bipc.com BMW NORTH AMERICA: Parker Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------ The venue of the case titled as Elizabeth Kaufman, Edna Parker and Carroll Gibbs, the Plaintiffs, v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen A.G., Volkswagen Group of America Inc, Audi AG, Audi of America Inc., Audi of America, Dr. Ing h.c.F Porsche Ag, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited, Daimler AG, Mercedes Benz USA LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC and Mercedes-Benz US International, the Defendants, was transferred from the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv-05440, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:17-cv-05787-CRB (N.D. Cal.) on October 10, 2017. The case is assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer for further proceedings. The case was originally filed in New Jersey on July 25, 2017. On Oct. 23, 2017, a notice of voluntary dismissal by Edna Parker was filed. The class action lawsuit alleges a massive two decade-long conspiracy among German automotive manufacturers to unlawfully increase the prices of German Luxury Vehicles. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants agreed to share commercially sensitive information and reach unlawful agreements regarding German Luxury Vehicle technology, costs, suppliers, market, emissions equipment and other competitive attributes thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons. Among the unlawful collusion of the Defendants was an agreement on the size of AdBlue tanks to be used in German Luxury Vehicles. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons paid for the German Luxury Vehicles at unlawfully inflated prices as a result of the overarching conspiracy. The business activities of the Defendants substantially affected interstate trade and commerce in the United States and caused antitrust injury to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons in the United States.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Email: decklund@carellabyrne.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Robyn R. English, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com Email: KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com Email: REnglish@RobinsKaplan.com Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4599 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 Email: christopher.dalton@bipc.com - and - Israel Dahan, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2114 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Email: idahan@kslaw.com BONNEVILLE BILLING: Litigation and Discovery Plan Due Feb. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Zachary Lehmkuhl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., a Utah Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00776, was removed from the Seventh Judicial District for Madison County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00503-DCN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C. Nye. The Defendant filed its Answer to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on Dec. 18, 2017. On Dec. 29, Judge Nye entered a Litigation Order and set a Telephonic Scheduling Conference for Feb. 27 at 10:30 a.m. in Telephonic Hearing - Pocatello Chambers. On or before Feb. 20, the parties must file with the Court a joint Litigation Plan and Discovery Plan. Bonneville Billing & Collections offers information technology and billing services for hospitals, utilities, municipalities, medical offices, retail and grocery stores and restaurants. The company provides calling and mail order services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 Facsimile: (206) 350 3528 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Ryan Adam Ballard, Esq. BALLARD LAW, PLLC 237 N. 2nd East, Suite 102 Rexburg, ID 83440 Telephone: (208) 359 5532 E-mail: ryanballardlaw@gmail.com - and - Paul Arons, Esq. 685 Spring Street, No. 104 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 Telephone: (360) 378 6496 Attorneys for Defendants: Donald J Farley, Esq. William Dustin Charters, Esq. POWERS TOLMAN FARLEY, PLLC 345 Bobwhite Court, Ste. 150 P. O. Box 9756 Boise, ID 83707 Telephone: (208) 577 5100 Facsimile: (208) 577 5101 E-mail: djf@powerstolman.com wdc@powerstolman.com BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: "Dhuy" Suit Asserts Gender Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Raena Dhuy, individually, and on behalf of themselves And all others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01386, (E.D. Cal., December 28, 2017), seeks all legal and equitable relief available pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Sec. 12940, California Equal Pay Act, California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200. Booz Allen is a management consulting firm with contracts including those with the Department of Defense. Dhuy was a Lead Associate who managed Booz Allen's Authentication Services Team, located in Virginia. The company discriminated against Mrs. Dhuy as a result of her gender and complaints about pay disparity, despite her exemplary performance, says the complaint. Dhuy claims that all of her female subordinates were paid substantially less than their male counterparts, despite their similar or advanced qualifications. Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey Wagner, Esq. SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3900 W Alameda Ave., Suite 1200 Burbank, CA 91505 Tel: (213) 377-5200 Fax: (561) 653-0008 Email: LWagner@scottwagnerlaw.com Mail@scottwagnerlaw.com BUFFALO WILD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Arby's Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- KSTP reports that a Buffalo Wild Wings shareholder has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Minnesota alleging the Minneapolis- based company omitted key information in the proxy it provided to shareholders to solicit their vote in favor of a proposed merger with Arby's Restaurant Group. The deal, announced last November and valued at around $2.9 million, is based on a price of $157 per share. But Brian Pascual, a public shareholder, contends in his lawsuit, which he hopes to have certified as a class action on behalf of other shareholders, that the proxy did not contain other information he alleges to be relevant, including a Goldman Sachs' Illustrative Present Value of Future Share Analysis that "demonstrated an implied per share price of up to $176, which illustrates that each share of Buffalo Wild Wings stock has an inherent premium of approximately 112% over the Merger Consideration." It also alleges the "$157.00 Merger Consideration represents a 10.3% discount from the Company's 52-week high of $175.19 per share of Buffalo Wild Wings common stock." The lawsuit, which names both the company and the individual members of the board of directors as defendants, alleges the omissions represent a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "In sum, it appears Buffalo Wild Wings is well-positioned for financial growth and that the Merger Consideration fails to adequately compensate the Company's shareholders," the lawsuit reads. The lawsuit seeks the court stop the company from proceeding with both the shareholder vote on the transaction, scheduled for Feb. 2, and the merger itself "unless and until the Company discloses the material information discussed above which has been omitted from the Proxy." It also asks the court to declare the matter maintainable as a class action, meaning Pascual would be certified as class representative and his attorneys as class counsel. And it asks to direct the company to "account to the Plaintiff and the Class for all damages suffered as a result of their wrongdoing," as well as awarding "Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses." It further requests that the court grant "such other and further equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper." "The immediate hope would be for full disclosure based on case law interpretation of what fair disclosure should be," said Russell M. Spence, the Edina-based co-counsel for the plaintiff. "Whether or not a (shareholders') vote should proceed would depend on what the subsequent disclosure entailed." Spence said his side has reached out to attorneys representing the company, but he is not aware of a response as of yet. The company declined to comment on the matter, citing pending litigation. "Per company policy we do not comment on pending litigation," a statement read. The merger, which was unanimously approved by both companies' board of directors, is expected to close during the first quarter this year. Once it does, Buffalo Wild Wings will be a privately- held subsidiary of Arby's Restaurant Group and will continue to operate as an independent brand. Paul Brown, the chief executive officer of Arby's Restaurant Group, would serve as chief executive officer of the parent company. Arby's Restaurant Group is a majority-owned affiliate of Roark Capital Group and is based in Atlanta. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Fire Prevention Fee Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Douglas W. Motley, writing for The Alpenhorn News, reports that a Sacramento Superior Court judge on December 11 dismissed a lawsuit challenging Cal Fire's controversial fire prevention fee. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association (HJTA), which contends that the fee is actually an illegal tax on rural homeowners, plans to appeal the judge's decision. The so-called "Fire Prevention Fee," of $152.33, which has been levied on all habitable structures in rural areas within Cal Fire's State Responsibility Areas since it was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2011, had been suspended in a court action brought by HJTA last July. Now that the fee has been upheld by the court, it will apparently continue to be levied on nearly 800,000 rural properties statewide. The fee includes habitable structures in all unincorporated San Bernardino Mountain communities, such as Crestline, Lake Arrowhead and Running Springs, but excluded those within incorporated city boundaries, such as Big Bear City. According to Cal Fire, the fee was assessed to provide a stable source of funding for vital fire prevention activities such as fuel reduction, defensible space inspections emergency evacuation planning and fire prevention education. Opponents of the fee, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- which had filed a class action lawsuit to repeal the widely unpopular fee -- contend the fee is an illegal tax because the legislature never approved it with the two-thirds majority vote required for all tax increases. According to the association's president, Jon Coupal, the lawsuit, which has survived several previous challenges, had been suspended by California legislators last July 17. Currently, Cal Fire's fire prevention efforts are being funded by the state's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund with revenue from the state's Cap-and-Trade program. In dismissing the lawsuit, the judge sided with California's Attorney General, who had also opposed it. HJTA complained that the judge declined to read the HJTA's briefs and evidence, and instead dismissed the case on grounds that it should have been set for hearing sooner. "We don't want to say it's a rigged system, but we will appeal this ruling as a bizarre miscarriage of justice and we will continue to fight for the refunds that are owed to rural Californians for this illegal and now suspended tax," Mr. Coupal stated on the association's website. [GN] CAMERON COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Suit Threat Over Topless Bar Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Reagan, writing for The Brownsville Herald, reports that during a rare evidentiary hearing in Cameron County Commissioners Court on Jan. 8, attorney Larry Mark Polsky threatened to file a class-action takings lawsuit if commissioners didn't reverse the denial of his application for a topless bar just north of Beach Access 6 on South Padre Island. The evidentiary hearing is regarding Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio's decision to deny Mr. Polsky's application for a sexually oriented business because he failed to notify all of the adjacent landowners of his intentions and because the Cameron County Commissioners Court found that the public beach is basically a public park. No sexually oriented businesses are allowed within 1,500 feet of a public park in CameronCounty. The more than two-hour-long meeting was new ground for commissioners as the court was still trying to determine on Jan. 8 what legal authority it had regarding subpoenas Polsky issued. Witnesses stood at the lectern in the courtroom at the Dancy Building while commissioners Sofia C. Benavides, David A. Garza, Alex Dominguez and Judge Eddie Trevino Jr. listened to testimony and accepted evidence while ruling on objections. Commissioner Gus Ruiz was absent. During the hearing, Mr. Polsky called himself to the stand to lay out his case, but left the hearing when commissioners went into executive session and did not return. During the hearing, Mr. Polsky argued that he neglected to notify one person but that through word of mouth, all the property owners were notified in time for a public hearing required for his application for the topless bar. He also challenged Cameron County Commissioners Court declaration that the public beach is a public park because the court made that ruling after he filed his application. "I want to point out to each and every one of you, when I applied on June 3, 2017, for my sexually oriented business license there was no finding by Cameron County Commissioners that the beach, within 1,500 feet of Larry Mark Polsky's property, is a public park," Polsky told commissioners. "In other words, you created a fiction after I applied that didn't exist before I applied. You created a public park within 1,500 feet of my property to squash my application." Cameron County Chief Legal Counsel Juan Gonzalez said that determination was made for the purposes of sexually oriented businesses only. Cameron County Appraisal District Chief Administrator Richard Molina, who was subpoenaed by Polsky, testified that property owners in that area do pay property taxes and that there are no deed documents specifying that those property owners turned their titles over to the county for the purposes of creating a public park. Mr. Gonzalez, citing case law, said the courts have found that public beaches are used for activities like fishing, swimming and camping and that Commissioners Court has legislative discretion to call it a public park in connection to regulations governing sexually oriented businesses. "The suggestion that we've taken Mr. Polsky's property is inaccurate," Mr. Gonzalez said. While testifying, Mr. Polsky said that if they don't let him build his topless bar he is going to file a class-action lawsuit claiming that the county has taken away property from private ownership because it declared a public beach to be a public park. "If you win you lose," Mr. Polsky said. "If you grant me my license you win because you are stuck with one topless bar, one and one alone, and no takings case." Mr. Garza said he considered that assertion a threat, which, if he were a judge, would disturb him. "I was not threatening you," Mr. Polsky said. "I told you I already have the lawsuit on my desk. It's not a threat. I'm telling you that you are being sued." Mr. Gonzalez said after the hearing that he believes Mr. Polsky won't meet the threshold for the number of people needed to file a class-action lawsuit and that he can't represent himself in such a case because he would be one of the plaintiffs. After a brief hearing in executive session, and with Mr. Polsky nowhere to be found, Judge Trevino ordered both parties to submit findings and recommendations by Jan. 18 and then commissioners will take his appeal up and make a ruling during a regular meeting. Mr. Gonzalez told Judge Trevino he would make sure that information was passed on to Polsky, who said he expects his appeal to be denied and when that happens, he'll file an appeal with a state District Court. [GN] CANADA: More WRPS Female Officers Allege Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Flanagan and Krista Simpson, writing for CTV Kitchener, report that two current Waterloo Regional Police officers and one former officer have sworn affidavits as part of a proposed class- action lawsuit against the region's police board and police union, alleging a culture of sexual harassment that leaves female officers afraid to report misconduct. The legal action was launched last year, when a current officer and a former officer came forward with allegations that they were repeatedly harassed and abused. Like the earlier claims, none of the new allegations have been tested in court. The lawyer representing Waterloo Regional Police in the lawsuit says the organization does not normally comment on a matter before the courts, but is making an exception in this case. "It would be unfair and wrong to let the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs that we believe contain untrue, exaggerated, misleading and/or defamatory allegations against past, current, and deceased members which we vehemently deny, be left unchallenged," James H. Bennett said in an email to CTV News. The new claims include a sworn affidavit from Sgt. Karin Eder, who joined the organization in 1988, at the age of 21. Ms. Eder claims that her early years with Waterloo Regional Police were rife with sexual harassment, as she was only one of two women in her platoon. She says she was told that women shouldn't be working for the police, had an officer lift up her skirt in front of her colleagues, and had a supervisor repeatedly hand her photos of him having sex with other women. She says she and the other female officer were given male uniforms because the organization did not yet have uniforms for women, and were mocked for the poor fit of the male uniforms. Ms. Eder says she raised these concerns with her supervisors, and felt she wasn't taken seriously. One time, she says, a supervisor told her she "should have been a model and not a cop." Ms. Eder's affidavit also claims that in 2008, Pat Dietrich -- now a superintendent with Waterloo Regional Police -- sent her a picture of his penis, asked her for a naked picture in return, and stopped talking to her when she refused to send a picture. Ms. Eder says her time with Waterloo Regional Police has left her feeling "depressed, ashamed and worthless" and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Such feelings appear to be a common theme in the affidavits filed as part of the class-action suit. Mr. Dietrich's name also comes up in a new affidavit filed by Barry Zehr, who was the WRPS superintendent of human resources until his retirement in 2017. Mr. Zehr says he heard about Ms. Dietrich sending a female officer a picture of his penis, and was told by the organization's lawyer that nothing could be done without a formal complaint -- which Ms. Eder says she decided not to file because she was told it would likely only result in Mr. Dietrich being warned, and feared that it would lead to professional reprisals against her. Mr. Zehr says he believes senior officers were aware of the incident and other alleged sexual misconduct on Dietrich's part, and chose not to address it with him. He says Mr. Dietrich has since been given "prestigious assignments" within the organization. Concerns about officers facing reprisals for reporting wrongdoing are also voiced by Sgt. Shelley Heinrich, who has also filed an affidavit supporting the lawsuit. Ms. Heinrich claims that both the police service and the Waterloo Regional Police Association union "deliberately and systemically fail to properly punish the wrong doers and deter the insidious behaviour." An officer since 1991, Heinrich says her experience has left her traumatized both physically and psychologically. Her allegations include that, in 2005, two WRPS supervisors referred to a staff sergeant of Asian heritage as "slant eye" and tried to get him transferred. She claims some of those supervisors filed a baseless sexual harassment complaint against that staff sergeant on Heinrich's behalf. When she found out about it, she says, she told the supervisors that she wanted no part of it -- only to find herself "blacklisted and ignored" from then on. "In many cases, the male perpetrators were promoted and rewarded despite their wrongful conduct, while I was isolated and subjected to further harassment and discrimination," she says. Waterloo Regional Police do have a procedure regarding discrimination and harassment. It is overseen by Gary Melanson, the organization's director of legal affairs. Mr. Melanson's name also turns up in Eder's affidavit, as the sergeant claims that Mr. Melanson made inappropriate comments to her about her appearance and personal life, talked about his sex life in front of her and once brushed hair off her face -- which she says made her feel "extremely uncomfortable." Ms. Eder says that as a result of those incidents, she didn't feel the harassment and discrimination procedure would be an effective way for her to address her concerns. CTV News contacted Mr. Melanson and Dietrich about the allegations in the affidavits. Neither wished to comment. The final new affidavit is from Vera T. Mackenzie, a former officer who worked with Waterloo Regional Police between 1986 and 1998. Ms. Mackenzie says she was once told by an officer, in front of the rest of their platoon, that she should perform a sexual act on him. She says she was subjected to remarks on her appearance as well as "snide comments" about a miscarriage she had experienced, for which she filed a complaint. She says she was later denied a transfer and told concerns about her complaint were the reason why the transfer had been turned down. According to her affidavit, later on in her time with WRPS, her son became seriously ill and she would call home during her shifts to check on him. She says supervisors became aware of these personal calls and began requiring her to log her daily activities, right down to bathroom breaks. "We had male police officers spending their work hours organizing their personal affairs, discussing and scheduling their hockey and golf games and attending to their personal matters, yet I was the only person who was required to report on all of my daily activities," she says. Ms. Mackenzie says she eventually filed another complaint, laying out a pattern of incidents she saw as harassment and discrimination, including a fellow officer not being punished for calling her a vulgar term. She says she was eventually told that any sexual harassment "never occurred", and chose to leave the organization because she felt she would be "harassed and punished" if she stayed. "I am one of a few officers who took my grievance through all stages of the prescribed procedure and it cost me my career," she says. The proposed legal action has yet to be certified as a class- action lawsuit. The case returns to court in March. Mr. Bennett, the lawyer representing police on the matter, says the organization does not believe the lawsuit should be certified. "The affiants are now going to be cross-examined under oath within the next 30 days and their false, exaggerated and misleading allegations will be challenged and exposed at that time," he said. Douglas Elliott, one of the lawyers behind the proposed lawsuit, sees it differently. "There is simply no accountability in the Waterloo Regional Police Service," he said in an interview. "I dare say there are less sexualized environments in frat houses at universities than there are at WRPS." [GN] CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Calls on Sexual Harassment Oversight ------------------------------------------------------------ VOCM reports that a former RCMP officer is calling on the police force to bring in independent oversight to curb sexual harassment in the workplace. Janet Merlo launched a class-action lawsuit against the RCMP back in 2012 after she said there was ongoing sexual harassment in the workplace. Ms. Merlo says it was a daily battle for many women. She says sex toys were left in her area, she was cursed out for getting pregnant and was accused of "being on the rag" when she brought up suggestions during meetings." In 2016, a settlement was reached with the women involved in the lawsuit. Ms. Merlo says despite winning the lawsuit, little has been done by the RCMP to fix the problem. She's now calling on the police force to bring in independent oversight. She says creating an independent body that looks at harassment within the RCMP would go a long way in making people feel comfortable about speaking out. [GN] CAPCO PIZZA: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RENE VASQUEZ LARA and JUAN ARLOS VASQUEZ LARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAPCO PIZZA CORP. D/B/A OLIVETTO PIZZERIA & RISTORANTE and ANTHONY CAPOGNA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Dec. 7, 2017), seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Juan Carlos Vasquez Lara was paid by Defendants approximately $450.00 per week in or around February 2017 and approximately $500.00 per week from March 2017 until July 2017. Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 72 hours or more per week during the period of his employment, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hour worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen F. Dalton, Esq. Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 113 7 S Telephone: (718) 263 9591 CARTER DISTRIBUTING: Hill Moves for FLSA Collective Action Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JASON SHAUN HILL and, JOSHUA GORDON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees v. CARTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, PREMIUM BRANDS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, BOB MONROE, MIKE DENTON and, BLAIR CARTER, Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-00340-JRG-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), move the Court to issue an order: (1) authorizing this case to proceed as a conditionally certified collective action against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages owed, for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of non-management/non-exempt employees (including but not limited to warehouse personnel, support personnel, delivery drivers and helpers) of Defendants during the last three years that were paid a fixed amount per week instead of being paid by the hour; (2) directing Defendants to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last three years; (3) providing that notice be prominently posted at Defendants' former warehouse/distribution center in Chattanooga, Tennessee where putative class members worked, and be mailed and e-mailed to each such current and former non-management/non-exempt employee, who was so employed during the last three years so each can assess their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; (4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative Class as of the date this motion is granted (except for those who already have opted into this action); and (5) requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked (except for those who already have opted into this action). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kh7EdhWU The Plaintiffs are 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 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com CORECIVIC INC: Must Face Investors' Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Correctional News reports that CoreCivic Inc., the Nashville- based private prison provider presently facing various federal lawsuits over the operation of a private contract detention facility in Leavenworth, Kan., is facing additional scrutiny and a securities class action complaint from some of its investors. The complaint, filed on March 13, 2017, contends that CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America or CCA) allegedly violated of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a scheme to defraud investors by falsely representing that the outsourcing of correctional services to CCA resulted in improved correctional services for government agencies and that CCA's facilities were operated in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. Among the agencies listed is the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). According to shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP, which is investigating whether certain officers and directors of CoreCivic breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders, BOP had uncovered and notified CCA of numerous violations of BOP policies, including understaffing and underqualified staff and failure to provide adequate healthcare to its inmates. On Dec. 18, the Hon. Aleta A. Trauger, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied CoreCivic's motion to dismiss in Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America. The Tennessee Middle District Court also received a civil rights complaint filing on Dec. 28 on behalf of plaintiff Cae Aguilera, which names CoreCivic and the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center, a private prison for men located in Hartsville, Tenn. The facility is operated under contract with the Tennessee Department of Corrections by CoreCivic. Meanwhile, the private prison provider also faces federal lawsuits over the operation of Leavenworth Detention Center (LDC), in Leavenworth, Kan. The suits allege employment discrimination and spying on communications among other issues including understaffing and "triple bunking detainees." CoreCivic operates facilities and employs 13,000 employees nationwide. It was founded in 1983 as Corrections Corporation of America and rebranded as CoreCivic in late 2016. By 2016, the company was the second largest private corrections company in the nation. CoreCivic manages more than 65 state and federal correctional and detention facilities in 19 states (including the District of Columbia) across the country representing a capacity of 90,000 beds. [GN] COREY HILL: Refused to Make Condo Repairs, Decataldi Says --------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA A. DECATALDI, the Plaintiff, v. MARTHA NEU, KEVIIN CASEY, PETER DAYTON, AVIVA SELLING, AND LINDA VIDONE, as they are TRUSTEES of the COREY HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 17-1544 (Mass. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to cause the Defendant Association to enforce and abide by the Master Deed to the benefit of all parties owning property/units in the Condominium who are all similarly situated and to which the Defendant(s) is/are collectively causing harm. The Plaintiff Decataldi brings this action against Defendant Corey Hill Condominium Association on the theories of Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Contract; Negligence; and Nuisance. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and as a Derivative Action, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. Rule 23.1, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, as owners of condominium units in the Corey Hill Condominium. Decataldi is the owner of the real property known as and located at Corey Hill Condominium, 50 Winchester Street, Unit 202, Brookline, Massachusetts 02446 (the "Property"). The Property is a condominium, which has the benefit of and is subject to a Master Deed, as same is identified below. Pursuant to said Master Deed and M.G.L. c. 183A, the Defendant, the Corey Hill Condominium Association (the "Association"), is obligated to operate, maintain, and repair the common areas of the Condominium. Decataldi has given notice to the Association, both directly and through counsel, of a defective condition in the common area(s) adjacent to the Property, which not only needs repair for the health, safety, and maintenance of the Condominium, but which condition has caused damage to the Property and interferes with the operation of the Property and the health, safety, and use of the inhabitants thereof. The Condominium has refused to make such necessary repairs to the detriment of Plaintiff and those other similarly situated in the Condominium.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Magerer, Esq. Michael Magerer & Associates, P.C. 109 Highland Avenue Needham, MA 02494 3091 Telephone: (781) 453 0800 Facsimile: (781) 453 0606 E-Mail: mmagerer@maglaw.us CRYPTO CO: Feb. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of The Crypto Company ("Crypto") (OTCMKTS:CRCW) between August 21, 2017 and December 18, 2017. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/plsra-c/the-crypto-company?wire=3 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Crypto unlawfully engaged in a scheme to promote and manipulate the Company's stock; and (ii) as a result, Crypto's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 19, 2017, the SEC temporarily suspended Crypto stock from trading due to concerns that the stock was being manipulated after the shares surged more than 17,000% in less than 3 months. If you suffered a loss in Crypto you have until February 20, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN] DELTIC TIMBER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Jan. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case No. :17-cv-01812, on behalf of shareholders of Deltic Timber Corp. ("Deltic" or the "Company") (NYSE: DEL) who have been harmed by Deltic's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with a subsidiary of Potlatch Corporation ("Potlatch"). On October 22, 2017, Deltic and Potlach entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which each outstanding share of Deltic common stock will be exchanged for 1.80 shares of Potlatch common stock (the "Merger Consideration"), representing approximately $1.16 billion in equity value. The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on December 7, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Deltic shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/DELnotice Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] EI DUPONT: Cohen Milstein, Susman Godfrey Tapped as Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that after concern over GenX and its presence in the Cape Fear River -- the main drinking water source for Wilmington and surrounding areas -- led to a number of class actions filed late last year, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Susman Godfrey have been tapped as interim co-lead class counsel for the consolidated class action against DuPont and wholly-owned subsidiary, the Chemours Company (NYSE: CC). The appointment was made by Judge James C. Dever of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. We are "very honored to be selected as co-lead counsel," says Ted Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner at Cohen Milstein and a member of the firm's executive committee, who along with Steve Morrissey -- smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com -- a partner at Susman Godfrey, was appointed as interim co-lead counsel for the class action. "It is certainly in line with the public justice work at the firm that we do," says Mr. Leopold, who is also co-lead counsel in a class action filed on behalf of residents of Flint, Michigan, against Gov. Rick Snyder, local government officials, the city of Flint and a group of engineering companies over contamination of the city's water supply. According to a Jan. 4 filing in the GenX case, "The court also orders the creation of an executive committee for the putative class, which will include Gary W. Jackson of The Law Offices of James Scott Farrin [based in Durham] and Neal H. Weinfield of Dedendum Group [based in Illinois]." "Plaintiffs shall file two master consolidated complaints not later than January 31, 2018," the filing states -- the class action and another complaint filed on behalf of local public utility authorities. DuPont and Chemours have owned and operated Fayetteville Works, a site along the Cape Fear River, since the 1970s. According to the previously filed class action complaints, the defendants have been discharging GenX into the Cape Fear River since 1980 as a byproduct of manufactured vinyls and since 2009 as a chemical manufactured commercially. National plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein opened an office in Raleigh last year -- led by former North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Martha Geer. In an interview in October, Geer said that, as in Flint, the litigation has been about toxins in drinking water that become part of plumbing systems and are then very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. Mr. Leopold calls the Flint and GenX cases two of the most significant water contamination cases in the U.S. currently. The five-county area that has a drinking water supply from the Cape Fear River amounts to about 750,000 people. Chemours has not responded to requests for comment. [GN] EMPIRE BIG: Up to 900 Plaintiffs Join Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Kong Meta, writing for The Phnom Penh Post, reports that some 900 plaintiffs have joined a class action suit against investment company Empire Big Capital, which is estimated to have defrauded tens of thousands of Cambodians out of up to $400 million, with more complainants expected to join the legal case in the coming weeks. As of Jan. 3, at least 91 people in Banteay Meanchey had filed complaints against the Hong Kong-based company, according to provincial Police Chief Art Khem. "I believe there are more than 100 people in this province who were victims of this company", Khem said. EBC promised an alluring 10 percent monthly interest on minimum investments of $2,000 but soon absconded with the funds, duping thousands of Cambodians. Ly Sovanna, a lawyer representing the victims, said each had lost at least $1,000 in the Ponzi scheme, while one plaintiff had lost a whopping $150,000. "Because people saw they could get the money easily, they took loans from the banks and money brokers. None [escaped] being a victim," he said. Mr. Sovanna said his team of five had already collected complaints and evidence from 10 provinces in the Kingdom's south and northwest. In the hopes of filing the case by mid-January, the team will visit Tbong Khmum, Kampong Cham, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and Oddar Meanchey provinces. While two lower-level arrests have been made, the big players in the plot -- EBC head Sean Tan, Asian Investment Fund's Chi Gosaly, Investment Consultant Association's Huot Sovann and their alleged associate Long Sambath -- have not yet been apprehended. "They fled the country. Police know where they are now. Police are now requesting a red note from Interpol," Mr. Sovanna said. Dy Vichea, director of the Central Security Department at the Ministry of Interior, and ministry spokesman Khieu Sopheak could not be reached on Jan. 7. [GN] FIAT CHRYSLER: Law Firm Launches Class Action Over Used Cars ------------------------------------------------------------ John Kirwan, writing for MotorTrader.com reports that legal firm Harcus Sinclair is bringing a class action on behalf of consumers who purchased used cars not knowing they were used previously such as in daily rental or ex-fleet vehicles with multiple users. It said such sales created a misleading impression of the vehicle and consumers could be eligible for compensation. "By withholding such information from the purchaser, we will allege that the purchaser was mis-sold their vehicle by the manufacturer or dealer and may be eligible for compensation. "Guidance from the Office of Fair Trading specifically addresses this issue, and describes the practice of creating a misleading impression of the previous use of a vehicle as, unsurprisingly, a misleading action." Another group The Used Car Mis-selling Group Action has been campaigning for seven years on the issue. It is reported that the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is poised to issue a warning to carmakers and dealers within weeks to include information in car advertisements telling potential buyers if cars on sale are ex-rental vehicles. The ASA's position was outlined in November when it said that if a vehicle was an ex-rental it could influence the buying decision. And if it was used by multiple users then that was likely to be "material information" to be disclosed in the advertisement. This position came from the ASA's ruling on Glyn Hopkin and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles UK in November. In that case, it considered it was "reasonable to expect" that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles UK could provide records on used cars showing how they had used them whilst under their ownership as a fleet operator, including whether they were driven by multiple users. It found that because Glyn Hopkin was an approved dealer and had purchased the cars directly from FCA, the ASA considered that they were capable of easily obtaining such information. "Fiat Chrysler Automobiles UK had provided evidence showing that each advertised car had only been used by one user whilst they were part of FCA's fleet. "One was allocated to a contractor (for training purposes and the other to an employee as a company car. They also submitted documentation showing that both cars had a very low mileage prior to being allocated to their named users, which were returned at a later date to be sold off. "However, the ads did not state that the cars were previously used for business purposes whilst part of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles UK's fleet and for that reason the ASA concluded that the ads breached the CAP Code. It said for independent dealers, the ASA's approach was likely to vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on how reasonable it would be to expect that the dealership could or should, have obtained the information. [GN] FIAT CHRYSLER: Uconnect Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chrysler Uconnect lawsuit will continue for Kansas customers, but not as a nationwide class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs say they purchased a new 2013 Dodge Dart that came equipped with a Uconnect infotainment system that allows drivers to control radio, navigation, remote locking, climate control and other features from a touchscreen on the dashboard. According to the lawsuit, the Uconnect system in the Dodge Dart began to freeze and then shut off in April 2016, leaving a blank, black screen that didn't work, so the plaintiffs took their car to a dealership for repairs while the Dart was still under warranty. The dealership replaced the Uconnect system on May 14, 2016, but that same day the replacement system began to randomly black out. On June 1, 2016, the dealership replaced the system's module, allegedly causing the screen to flash back and forth from black to white. Once again the dealership said it had fixed the system, but the screen went black again after the plaintiffs picked up the car. In July, the dealership again replaced the Uconnect system that allegedly experienced even more issues that prevented the plaintiffs from controlling their heating, air conditioning and navigation. The lawsuit says the next few months saw the dealership try three more times to repair the Uconnect system, but without success. The plaintiffs say that since 2014, Fiat Chrysler has sent its dealers three technical service bulletins (TSBs) about the Uconnect systems. FCA (Fiat Chrysler) filed a motion to dismiss the Uconnect lawsuit by claiming the plaintiffs failed to state a specific defect, and claims of warranty violations should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't allege breach of an express warranty. Chrysler also told the judge a nationwide class-action shouldn't be allowed because the plaintiffs based their claims on Kansas law, which "cannot govern out-of-state transactions." The judge granted Chrysler's motion to dismiss, partially. Hopes for a nationwide class-action lawsuit were lost when the judge ruled claims made in the lawsuit aren't good enough to include any state other than Kansas. Hence, based on violations of warranty laws, the lawsuit will continue for affected Kansas customers who purchased or leased cars with an 8.4-inch Uconnect infotainment system on or after January 12, 2013. The Chrysler Uconnect lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas - Rasnic et al v. FCA US LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Bell Law, LLC, Waddell Law Firm LLC, Rex A. Sharp, PA, and the Lanier Law Firm, P.C. [GN] FLINT, MI: Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in Water Crisis Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Carmody, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that the Michigan Court of Appeals is weighing legal arguments which may determine if a class action lawsuit against the state concerning the Flint water crisis may go forward. The lawsuit is seeking damages from the state for Flint residents affected by decisions that created the city's tap water problems. It's one of many lawsuits related to the water crisis. The state is challenging key parts of the class action suit, including whether emergency managers appointed by the governor are actually 'state' officials. "Unquestionably it is a significant amount of power," Assistant Attorney General Nathan Gambill argued before the three-judge panel, "But that doesn't make them state officials. Their authority is limited to only acting on behalf of local officials. That's not statewide." Flint's water source was switched while the city was under the control of an emergency manager. Water from the Flint River was not properly treated. The corrosive water damaged city pipes, which leached lead into the drinking water. The switch may have also led to a deadly Legionnaires disease outbreak that killed at least a dozen people. Attorneys for the state are also arguing the class action suit should have been filed earlier. The suit seeks damages tied to a period in the fall of 2015 when problems with the water supply prompted a return to water from Detroit. Paul Novak is one of the attorneys handling the class action suit. He scoffs at the state's assertion that Flint residents should have known earlier that there was something wrong with their tap water. Mr. Novak points to the current criminal probe that's charged state officials with misleading Flint residents by telling them their tap water was "safe to drink" for more than a year after the ill-fated switch. "You tell me which time I'm supposed to believe the state and which time I'm not," Mr. Novak told reporters after the hearing. During the hearing in Detroit, the three-judge panel closely questioned both sides. In the end, attorneys believe the case will likely end up before the Michigan Supreme Court. "What's at stake is the ability to proceed in the only form available to be able to hold this state responsible and accountable for the violation of the rights of every single resident and water user in the city of Flint," says attorney Julie Hurwitz, who represents Flint residents suing the state. [GN] FLINT, MI: Judge to Nominate Levin as Water Crisis Case Mediator ---------------------------------------------------------------- WJRT reports that attorneys involved in the class action civil lawsuits stemming from Flint water crisis were expected to appear in federal court on Jan. 11 for the next steps in the case. U.S. District Judge Judith Levy has filed documents with the court to nominate retired U.S. Sen. Carl Levin of Detroit and former Wayne County Chief Judge Pro Tem Pamela Harwood to serve as mediators in the case. Attorneys involved in the case had until Jan. 10 to object to either appointment and nominate someone else. Ten separate class action lawsuits and 50 civil lawsuits representing residents and business owners in Flint affected by the water crisis were consolidated into a single case on Sept. 29. Several state government officials, including Gov. Rick Snyder, are named as defendants in the case. The plaintiffs are seeking a financial judgment as compensation for their pain and suffering caused by the water crisis. The water crisis started in April 2014, when Flint's drinking water source was switched from the Great Lakes Water Authority in Detroit to the Flint River. However, officials at all levels of government are accused of failing to ensure the more corrosive river water was properly treated. As a result, the protective linings wore away inside lead-based water pipes serving Flint residences and businesses, causing traces of lead to enter the drinking water supply. [GN] FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------ Jerry Bell, Chris Meche, Michael Aymond, Mack Gordon, Fred Oliveaux and Kevin Rabeaux, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ANTOINE RICHARD, ET AL. v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.), seek an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action, with the class members defined as: All persons who work or have worked as a distributor in the State of Louisiana for Flowers and were classified as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have misclassified all of the Plaintiffs and proposed class members as independent contractors such that injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. They ask the Court to grant their Motion and promptly commence all required procedures for class action in the litigation, including sending notice to the class under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any appropriate case management orders under Rule 23(d). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=veYlOXFN The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Durio, Esq. Ryan M. Goudelocke, Esq. Travis J. Broussard, Esq. DURIO, MCGOFFIN, STAGG & ACKERMANN 220 Heymann Boulevard (70503) Post Office Box 51308 Lafayette, LA 70505-1308 Telephone: (337) 233-0300 Facsimile: (337) 233-0694 E-mail: durio@dmsfirm.com ryan@dmsfirm.com travis@dmsfirm.com FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Analyzes Seven Factors in Interns' Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Louis L. Chodoff, Esq., -- chodoffl@ballardspahr.com -- Kelly T. Kindig, Esq. -- kindigk@ballardspahr.com -- Jessica C. Watt, Esq. -- wattj@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that in yet another blow to Obama-era Department of Labor (DOL) precedent, the DOL recently eliminated its six-part test for determining whether interns can be deemed employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), replacing it with a seven-factor test that has been endorsed by various federal circuit courts. In a statement issued January 5, the DOL adopted the seven-factor test that was first promulgated by the Second Circuit in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. Glatt held that courts should use the "primary beneficiary test" to differentiate between employees -- who are entitled to certain protections under the FLSA, such as minimum wage and overtime -- and interns, who are not. To determine whether the intern or the employer is the "primary beneficiary" of the relationship, courts analyze seven non- exclusive factors: -- The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee and vice versa. -- The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions. -- The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern's formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit. -- The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern's academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar. -- The extent to which the internship's duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning. -- The extent to which the internship's duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning. -- The extent to which the intern's work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern. -- The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship. Several federal appellate courts had already adopted the Glatt standard to find that interns in various industries were not employees and could not file class actions lawsuits against their employers. The DOL's previous six-part test presumed that an individual was an employee under the FLSA unless that individual met all criteria of the intern test, including such factors as whether the internship was for the benefit of the intern and whether the employer derived an immediate advantage from the intern's activities. The Glatt test, on the other hand, is case-specific, flexible, and employer-friendly, making it more likely an individual will be deemed an intern not covered by the FLSA. Nonetheless, employers should not take this change at the DOL as an open invitation to make wholesale changes to internship programs or to merely replace employees with unpaid interns in the hopes of saving on labor costs. Even under the new standard established by the DOL, internship programs still must be educational in nature and the intern must be the party who primarily benefits from the relationship; otherwise employers may face litigation under the FLSA, which could result in liability for civil monetary penalties, back pay, and liquidated damages. Finally, employers should be careful to fully analyze state law in their respective jurisdictions, as states can implement different, and perhaps stricter, standards. [GN] GARDENS OF FOUNTAIN: Jones' Bid for Class Certification Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William C. Griesbach denied the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court facilitated notice in the lawsuit titled JACQUELYN JONES v. THE GARDENS OF FOUNTAIN WAY LLC and GARDENVIEW INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01347-WCG (E.D. Wisc.). Judge Griesbach granted Ms. Jones' motion to restrict document. Plaintiff Jacquelyn Jones brought the action against the Defendants on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, whom she claims did not receive compensation or overtime compensation for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Wisconsin wage law. In the Decision and Order, Judge Griesbach opines that Ms. Jones has not made a sufficient factual showing that she and the putative class members were victims of a common illegal policy. Therefore, Judge Griesbach states, conditional certification is inappropriate for this claim. A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DNTkPc3L GERMANY: Jan. 28 Hearing Set for Nama Genocide Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kuzeeko Tjitemisa, writing for New Era, reports that Windhoek-The lawsuit filed by the Ovaherero and Nama people, in which they seek reparations from the German government for the Ovaherero/Nama genocide, is set to be heard for the third time in a US court, later this month. The class-action suit, filed by Ovaherero Chief Vekuii Rukoro and Nama Chief David Frederick, seeks reparations from the present German government for genocide carried out by German colonial troops, in what is now Namibia, more than a century ago. The case, scheduled for January 28, was brought to court in the US because that country allows lawsuits that address claims on behalf of entire communities. The plaintiffs are also demanding that their representatives be included in ongoing talks between Germany and Namibia, which aim for a joint declaration on their common past. Up to 100,000 Herero and Nama are believed to have been killed by German imperial troops in the early 1900s in what was then the German colony of South-West Africa. Successive German governments have refused to accept the atrocities as genocide. The dialogue between Germany and Namibia includes discussions about an official apology for the genocide. However, Germany's ambassador to Namibia, Christian Schlaga, has publicly ruled out paying reparations directly to present members of the Ovaherero and Nama ethnic groups. Schlaga last year hinted, though, that Germany would be willing to pay Namibia compensation from which its entire population would benefit. Deutsche Welle (DW) was recently quoted by the German envoy Ruprecht Polenz as having said that it was right that the German government ruled out direct compensation even before negotiations were concluded. "The expectations of the negotiations were fraught with such perspectives from the start," he told DW. "The fact is that after World War II, Germany only paid personal reparations to individuals who personally suffered in the concentration camps or were forced to do slave labour," he said. DW also quoted the German opposition parliamentarian Niema Movassat of Die Linke (The Left) party as to have said the lawsuit was the "consequence" of the German government's refusal to enter into direct negotiations with the Herero and Nama. "It is absurd to exclude a certain community from negotiations about a genocide that affected them. It is understandable that the people do not feel taken seriously," he told DW. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Sexual Harassment Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------- William D. Cohan, writing for The New Yorker, reports that in 1996, twenty-three female brokers sued Smith Barney for sexual harassment and pay discrimination in what became known as the "Boom-Boom Room" case. Nearly two thousand women nationwide joined the lawsuit after it was granted class-action status and, in the end, Smith Barney paid the women a hundred and fifty million dollars in settlements and arbitration awards. Yet, as powerful men in a variety of industries have been forced out in recent months for workplace sexual harassment, fewer senior executives in finance, as compared to other fields, have been ousted. Why? There is little doubt that finance has had just as many cases of sexual predation as other industries, and perhaps more. Finance is a male-dominated industry and the few women who manage to enter it, and to climb its ranks, often become the targets of the men who work there. Renee-Eva Fassbender Amochaev, a broker who successfully sued Smith Barney for gender discrimination in a subsequent case, when it was part of Citigroup, told me that the way Wall Street firms resolve sexual-harassment cases continues to protect perpetrators and firms. Large settlements are paid, but the men who either committed the bad behavior or effectively condoned it often remain. "No one gets fired," she said. "Everyone on the inside knows the system is rigged." And, because the settlements are confidential, the incidents are kept quiet. "The bad behavior doesn't become public," she told me. "The end result remains a secret which ultimately perpetuates the problem." In 2010, three female former employees of Goldman Sachs -- a former vice-president, a managing director, and an associate -- filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the firm claiming that it systematically discriminated against women in both pay and promotions. In the complaint, one of the women-H. Cristina Chen-Oster, who spent eight years at the firm and became a vice-president before leaving, in March, 2005--told the story of how, in the fall of 1997, members of her department went to Scores, a topless dance club in Manhattan, to celebrate a colleague's promotion. Later that night, a married male associate insisted on walking Ms. Chen-Oster to her boyfriend's apartment a few blocks away. Once there, the male associate ended up "pinning her against a wall, kissing and groping her, and attempting to engage in a sexual act with her." The complaint stated that Ms. Chen-Oster did not "invite or welcome the attempt and had to physically defend herself." The next morning, he "apologized profusely" and asked her to keep quiet about the incident. Ms. Chen-Oster eventually reported the groping to her supervisor, but he took no action, the lawsuit claimed. Her Goldman career was derailed. She was promoted once and her pay increased twenty-seven per cent. Her attacker, on the other hand, became a partner and saw his pay increase by four hundred per cent. (Goldman contended that Ms. Chen-Oster stonewalled an investigation. The firm declined to comment on the size of her alleged assailant's pay increase.) More than seven years later, the case continues to wind its way through the court system. Lisa Carnoy, who recently left her senior position at Bank of America after twenty-five years there and at Merrill Lynch, briefly worked at Bear Stearns, at the start of her career. She remembers there being just a handful of women at Bear in a professional class of more than a hundred. Managers placed all the women's desks together, and that part of the floor was known as the "pink ghetto." The rest of the office was decidedly more masculine. "It was a locker room," she said. "It was horrible, but I just sucked it up for a year." Ms. Carnoy, who was ranked the fourth most-powerful woman on Wall Street, in 2013, by American Banker, said she simply learned to ignore the bad behavior. "Many of the women who do try to succeed in this world, including myself, are very driven and ambitious and are willing to put the terrible behavior to the side, to say, 'I want a long career and I am just going to ignore that or compartmentalize that.' " Ms. Carnoy said she thought about suing Bear Stearns because what went on there was so "despicable," but then she thought better of it. "I remember thinking, 'Wow, I can sue them, but I want to be in this industry for the next thirty years,' " she recalled. The amount of potential compensation paid on Wall Street can cloud people's judgment, she said. An executive's annual bonus can be in the millions of dollars and if a woman experienced egregious harassment or criminal sexual assault on Wall Street, the settlement would also be in the millions. Ellen Pao, who famously brought and lost a gender-discrimination lawsuit against her former partners at Kleiner Perkins, a vaunted Silicon Valley venture-capital firm, told me that she, too, has been wondering why executives in finance have so far avoided the spotlight in the recent cascade of sexual-harassment stories. (During the trial, Kleiner Perkins denied in a statement that Ms. Pao was ever discriminated against and insisted that the firm championed women.) Pao told me that she thought part of the reason might be because that while women had won a few legal victories--and had received cash settlements--their careers had stalled afterward. "I wonder if people learned from that to be more quiet," Ms. Pao said, adding that she believed the settlements did not change the view in finance that women are unequal to men. "There were, I think, fewer strippers on the trading floors, but you didn't see fairness and you didn't see safe workplaces come out of it completely." Ms. Amochaev said there are still so few women on Wall Street that they effectively have no public voice, but she said the broader #MeToo moment is strengthening an "underground" movement, or whisper network, in which women who work in finance help one another. "What Wall Street still underestimates is that the 'underground' is still alive and well and growing stronger with this new movement," she said. "These women find me, contact me, call me -- for twelve solid years now. We plot, we organize in secret and effect change through an underground, which is how you, and countless women, have found me. It's all we have right now. We remain the exception in the industry, sadly." Today, Ms. Amochaev runs her own wealth-management firm in Santa Rosa, California. At a recent finance-industry conference, a male attendee who she did not know came up to her at the airport as she was leaving and kissed her on the mouth. Another attendee had kept touching her on the leg. She wondered if she should contact the conference organizers or the employer of the man who touched her leg. She felt, once again, that she had inadequate recourse for a problem that shows no sign of abating. "Wall Street is not held accountable," she said. "There are never any meaningful consequences. The story has not really been told. It's all a secret." [GN] GOOGLE INC: Former Engineer Files Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Loizos, writing for Techcrunch, reports that James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering, has filed a class action lawsuit against the company in Santa Clara Superior Court in Northern California. His claims: that Google unfairly discriminates against white men whose political views are unpopular with its executives. Mr. Damore is joined in the 161-page suit by another former Google engineer named David Gudeman, who spent three years with Google working on a query engine. According to Mr. Gudeman's LinkedIn profile, he left the company in December 2016 and has been self-employed since. The lawsuit, filed by Dhillon Law Group, says it aims to represent all employees of Google who've been discriminated against due to their "perceived conservative political views by Google," due to "their male gender by Google" and "due to their Caucasian race by Google." More specifically, it accuses Google of singling out, mistreating and systematically punishing and terminating employees who "expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google's employment policies and its business, such as 'diversity' hiring policies, 'bias sensitivity' or 'social justice' . . ." Mr. Damore isn't holding back any punches here. According to his filing, Google employs "illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas - - in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others." The suit also claims that the "numerical presence of women celebrated at Google" was based "solely due to their gender" while the "presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with 'boos' during companywide weekly meetings." Somewhat redundantly, it adds that Mr. Damore, Mr. Gudeman and "other class members" were "ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males." The lawsuit is seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies. Mr. Damore's firing last summer became the talk of the nation, with many in Silicon Valley outraged that Google didn't act even more swiftly to terminate him. Elsewhere, many wondered whether the firing would have a chilling effect on employees' ability to openly discuss their viewpoints. Google said it fired Mr. Damore for violating its code of conduct and advancing "harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." Mr. Damore meanwhile began a kind of press tour, denouncing the company for being close-minded and worse. In an interview with CNBC, for example, he compared being a conservative at Google to "being gay in the 1950s." In a press conference this afternoon, Damore's attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, a California representative for the Republican National Committee, elaborated more on the very lengthy complaint and argued that her current clients are far from alone. In fact, she said she spoke with "dozens" of employees at Google to formulate the lawsuit and that she expects there will be "future lawsuits" to explore, as well. To underscore her point that Google's policies need to be amended, she cited so-called TGIF meetings at Google, telling reporters that during Mr. Damore's tenure, "managers were called out and shamed and mocked if they didn't have 50/50 gender parity in [their respective] units." She called the goal "fair" but asked, rhetorically: "How do you get there? Job fairs. Making yourself more attractive. Not by saying, 'White guy, you can't have that job because that's reserved for a woman or [other] minority.'" Asked separately who is financing the suit, Ms. Dhillon told Techcrunch in an email earlier on Jan. 8 that "nobody but my law firm is financing the lawsuit at this time. We may choose to seek funding in the future, but neither Peter Thiel (I have been asked by others) or anyone else is involved besides my clients and my firm." (Thiel, the billionaire investor, famously financed multiple lawsuits against Gawker Media.) The new suit isn't the only one Google is having to defend itself against. In September, three female former Google employees filed a lawsuit against the company, saying it discriminates against women. To wit, says the suit, Google pays women at all levels of the company less than men, as well as assigns them lower job tiers with less opportunity for upward mobility. Last month, a fourth complainant joined their suit. The Labor Department is separately investigating systemic pay discrimination at Google. The company says it hasn't found a pay gap in its own analysis. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Urged to Review Privacy Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Register reports that nothing expresses Silicon Valley's cynicism about privacy like its fondness for rewarding its friends from privacy class-action settlements -- while class members get nothing. Now the US Supreme Court has been invited to consider whether such settlements are fair. These so-called cy pres settlements exploit a legal quirk, ("as near as") which was traditionally used in rare situations when a legal trust was dissolved. Any leftover money would go to charity. Google was the first to pioneer a new use for this. In 2011 Google offered $8.5m to settle the "Buzz" class action. After the lawyers took their $2m cut, $6m was spread around just 12 privacy groups -- and none went to individual class members. The Electronic Frontier Foundation received $1m, which exceeded the group's individual contributions for 2008/09. Facebook liked what it saw. In 2012, it used the privacy settlement process to compensate not the 150 million potential members of the class action -- but to a new "privacy group". Facebook even wanted to sit on the new group's board. The moral hazard here is obvious. Why should a citizens' group fight for the citizens, when it can boost its own bank balance instead? Non-profit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) received $1m from Google, which exceeded its individual contributions for 2008/09. The use of cy pres inverted the incentive structure, encouraging the watchdogs to get cosy with the serial offenders. At the very least, it gave the impression that the watchdogs were compromised. Julian Assange cited the cy pres settlement as warning. "The EFF is a great group, and they've done good things for us, but nonetheless it is significantly funded by Google, or people who work at Google," he said in a 2014 interview. The EFF gave Google and Facebook top marks for privacy in a 2014 report. "Quite a racket, these class actions: Uninjured plaintiffs + a defendant anxious to settle = millions in attorneys' fees and donations to activist groups (which in turn = more litigation)," snarked one legal blog. The cy pres cash distributions only came to light when the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) complained it hadn't got in on the cut. In one of the oldest privacy class actions, originally filed in 2010 by Paloma Gaos over Google's leaking of personal data via http referrer headers, the defendants rewarded their former law school. Hard-up "victims" of this privacy violation included the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard; and Carnegie-Mellon University among others. Two lawyers at the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, backed Gaos in appealing the money-go-round. The court recognised that cy pres presented a huge risk of corruption. They pointed out that the American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation recommended that a "cy pres remedy should not be ordered if the court or any party has any significant prior affiliation with the intended recipient that would raise substantial questions about whether the selection of the recipient was made on the merits". But in a narrow split decision), the appeals court approved the payouts. The dissenting appeals judge, Judge Wallace, thought that the allocation of almost half of the funds to the class counsel's alma maters raised a "red flag" -- particularly since one had barely done any internet privacy work. Of the final sums in the $8.5m the settlement fund, $3.2m was swallowed up by "attorneys' fees, administration costs, and incentive payments to the named plaintiffs. $5.3m or so was allocated to six cy pres recipients" who dutifully promised "to devote the funds to promote public awareness and education, and/or to support research development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the internet". Having been denied a review of the case in October, the CCAF has asked the Supremes to consider such settlements. "An $8.5m class-action settlement that awards absent class members no relief at all in exchange for their claims -- no money, no alteration of the defendant's allegedly injurious conduct, not even coupons -- is not 'fair, reasonable, and adequate' by any measure," the CCAF argues. The petition asks the highest court to intervene because of the inconsistency of the Ninth Circuit -- similar cy pres settlements have been bounced out of other jurisdictions: "This Court's intervention is warranted to establish a nationwide standard for the use of cy pres awards in class-action settlements and thereby prevent counsel bringing nationwide class actions from flocking to the Ninth Circuit because it provides their putative clients the weakest protections against collusive settlements facilitated by cy pres awards." It also cites the main areas of concern: the settlements don't compensate the victims a penny; they create a conflict of interest for the counsels representing the victims; defendants like Google and Facebook get to write their own "punishment". [GN] GURU NANAK AUTO: "Ventura" Suit Pending in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action against Guru Nanak Auto Parts Inc. is pending. The case is styled as Luis Ventura and Antonio Pavon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Guru Nanak Auto Parts Inc., Guru Nanak Auto Imports Inc., Krish Auto Parts Inc., Parveen Malhotra, Manju Malhotra and Sunil Malhotra, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 05874-ILG-VMS, (E.D.N.Y., October 11, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge I. Leo Glasser. Plaintiffs' complaint states that they work for Defendants with primary duties as a stocker and deliverer of parts, and performing other miscellaneous duties. The Plaintiffs allege violations of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, violation of the notice and record keeping requirements under the New York Labor Law, and violation of the wage statement requirements of the New York Labor Law.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 HARVARD COLLECTION: "Gamble" Class Cert. Bid Now Due March 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Justin S Anand has granted the Plaintiff an extension of the time to file a motion for class certification in the case titled as Shataquia Bourne (Gamble), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Harvard Collection Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-03951-TWT-JSA, (N.D. Ga., October 6, 2017). According to Magistrate Judge Anand, the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification is extended to March 2, 2018. On Jan. 24, the case was reassigned to Judge Michael L Brown. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr is no longer assigned to case. On Jan. 23, the Court entered an "Administrative Order Staying Civil Proceedings in Light of Lapse of Appropriations". That order was signed by Judge Thrash, Jr.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Misty Ann Oaks, Esq. THE OAKS FIRM 3515 Charlston Court Decatur, GA 30034 Telephone: (404) 725-5697 Facsimile: (775) 320-3695 Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (845) 367-7146 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Foster-Care Payments ---------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a legal battle over how much families are paid to care for foster children could cost Hawaii millions of dollars, state officials said. A 2013 class-action lawsuit accused the state of violating requirements of the federal Child Welfare Act, which mandates that foster-care payments be sufficient to cover the cost of providing for a child's basic needs, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported. The parties involved reached a tentative settlement last year that would have raised the monthly rates to $649 per child for younger children and $776 for children 12 years and older. The deal expired in June and the case is scheduled for trial in March. While attorneys representing the foster parents say they're prepared to litigate the case, Gov. David Ige is requesting $7.13 million to raise the monthly payments. A spokeswoman for the governor said the funding request is not tied to any proposed settlement of the lawsuit, even though the request is labeled in the governor's budget request as "Foster Care Board rate settlement increases." "The increase requested by the Department of Human Services in the governor's budget is based upon DHS's own responsibility to determine an appropriate foster board rate in accordance with the applicable federal and state regulations," Cindy McMillan, the governor's spokeswoman, said in an email. Keopu Reelitz, spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services, said the department "mistakenly included a reference to the settlement" in its budget request. She added that the department conducted a review as required by federal and state laws "and determined that the proposed foster board rate increase is required for DHS to meet the needs of our resource caregivers (formerly foster parents) and our foster youth." There are roughly 2,800 children in foster care in Hawaii. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over GDI Engine Defects --------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Hyundai engine lawsuit claims 2015-2016 Sonata, Tucson and Santa Fe vehicles with Theta 2-liter and 2.4-liter gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines have defects that cause thousands of dollars to repair. The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by two Hyundai owners who claim the engines are damaged due to restricted oil flow, typically causing damage to the Theta engines that can't be repaired unless the engines are replaced. The plaintiffs say they paid thousands of dollars to replace engines they thought were free from defects based on Hyundai's advertising. According to the lawsuit, Hyundai has actively concealed the Theta engines are prone to damage and failure caused by the connecting rod bearings, leaving owners in the dark until they experience engine problems. The plaintiffs say if Hyundai would have admitted the engines were defective, owners wouldn't have paid as much for the cars, or possibly not purchased the vehicles in the first place. The plaintiffs claim Hyundai has known about the Theta engine problems for years, especially through customer complaints and warranty claims, yet dealers have the habit of denying the existence of a defect. Many times, Hyundai allegedly refuses to repair or replace the engines even when the vehicles are still under warranty. Hyundai has recalled vehicles in the past due to problems with metallic debris from the crankshafts that restricts oil flow to the connecting rod bearings. Without enough oil flow to cool the engine components, the temperature of the bearings causes excessive wear and tear and a knocking noise from the engines. Owners also report illuminated oil pressure lights and even engines catching on fire. According to previous lawsuits filed about the Theta engines, the problem is brought about by the way Hyundai removed machining debris from the crankshafts. Affected owners who say they experienced the problems complain about the dangers of stalling in traffic and the hassle of being stranded without a working car. The Hyundai engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Coats, et al., v. Hyundai Motor Company, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, the Sultzer Law Group P.C., and Walsh PLLC. Hyundai and Kia have faced legal battles over the Theta engines before, including one filed concerning Sonata cars. That lawsuit came out in favor of the plaintiffs who allege 2011-2012 Sonatas have engine defects. Hyundai had recalled the cars in 2015, then federal safety regulators opened an investigation to determine if the recall was enough to fix the cars. In addition, Hyundai accused one of its engineers of talking to the U.S. government. Japanese media reported at the time that Hyundai petitioned a court by accusing the longtime Hyundai engineer with passing corporate secrets to federal safety regulators. [GN] INTEL CORP: Suits Pile Up Over Melton, Spectre Security Holes ------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Fingas, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Intel is staring down class action lawsuits in California, Indiana, and Oregon over the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities exposed in modern processors, which can be used to access restricted memory in unpatched devices. The suits, seen by AppleInsider, were filed in California, Indiana, and Oregon. One common thread through each is the delay between when researchers brought the issue to Intel's attention in June and its January disclosure. Another is the potential slowdown caused by available software fixes, though Intel has previously insisted that any performance hits are "workload- dependent" and "should not be significant" for the average person. The company is also promising to lessen the impact in future updates. The California suit alleges that users have caused class members to "lose money and property by being overcharged for and paying for the defective CPUs. Similarly, the Oregon-based suit alleges that users "suffered an actual ascertainable loss of the purchase price they paid for their microchip" and purports that had the flaw been known earlier that a purchase from a competitive vendor would have been likely. California's suit is case 5:18-CV-00046. Indiana's and Oregon's are 1:18-cv-00029 and 6:8-cv-00028 respectively. The Indiana suit leans on degradation of CPU performance with any fixes to be applied. It alleges that class members suffer from a choice of buying a new computer with a processor that does not contain the flaw or must continue to use a computer "with massive security vulnerabilities or one with significant performance degradation." Meltdown and Spectre exploit a feature in Intel and ARM processors called "speculative execution," which calculates multiple instruction branches simultaneously, predicting which one is most likely to be used. Meltdown mainly affects Intel chips, dating as far back as 1995. On Jan. 4 Apple acknowledged that while iOS 11.2, macOS 10.13.2, and tvOS 11.2 included fixes to protect against Meltdown, it still has more work to do, including patching watchOS and Safari to defend against Spectre. Further updates should be available in a matter of days. Intel and ARM-based chip designs are ubiquitous in the technology industry, used in the majority of computers, phones, tablets, and wearables. Apple relies on Intel CPUs for Macs, and ARM technology for the A- and S-series chips found in iPhones, iPads, iPods, and Apple Watches. [GN] INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action in California Over CPU Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Davies, writing for Telecoms.com, reports that law firm Doyle APC has filed a class action lawsuit against Intel for the design defect found in all of Intel's x86-64x CPUs. 2018 has not been a great year for Intel so far, as there has simply been a tsunami of bad news concerning security vulnerabilities in its x86-64x CPUs. Considering the extent of the Intel's woes, it wasn't going to be too long before a class action appeared, and here it is; Garcia, et al. vs. Intel Corp, Case No. 18-cv-00046, (ND Cal). The case itself aims to represent any US purchaser of Intel CPUs containing the defect, or purchasers of a device containing one of these Intel processors. The defect is actually down to what Intel must have through was a clever bit of engineering. The kernel mode attempts to guess what the user will do next, known as 'speculative execution', having certain programmes on stand-by to increase speed and performance. This action potentially exposes kernel data, one of the most sensitive parts of a computer. Since the vulnerability was initially exposed, Intel has been rushing to develop a patch, essentially closing the threat, though it is believed it will degrade performance at the same time. Intel claims 90% of processor products introduced within the past five years will be fixed, and for the average user, the impact on performance will be minimal. This has also been echoed by Intel's customers: Apple: "Our testing with public benchmarks has shown that the changes in the December 2017 updates resulted in no measurable reduction in the performance of macOS and iOS as measured by the GeekBench 4 benchmark, or in common Web browsing benchmarks such as Speedometer, JetStream, and ARES-6." Microsoft: "The majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact with this update. We've worked to optimize the CPU and disk I/O path and are not seeing noticeable performance impact after the fix has been applied." Google: "On most of our workloads, including our cloud infrastructure, we see negligible impact on performance." Amazon: "We have not observed meaningful performance impact for the overwhelming majority of EC2 workloads." This has been disputed by some commentators as the 'speculative execution' feature is believed to be one of the primary drivers of increased performance. Only time will tell. Doyle APC's ambulance chaser impersonation should of course been expected, though Intel has been the main recipient of attention so far. AMD and ARM are two other suppliers who have also admitted to vulnerabilities, though neither has gotten anywhere near the same amount of consideration. The flaw may not impact these products as much as Intel, or the severity of AMD and ARM defects has not been truly uncovered just yet. [GN] INTEL CORP: Class Action Mulled in Korea Over CPU Security Flaws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cho Jin-young, writing for Business Korea, reports that there is a growing move to file lawsuits in connection with security flaws in Intel's central processing units (CPUs) including law firm Damwoo's preparation for a class action lawsuit. According to industry sources on January 8, Damwoo set up a website for a class action lawsuit against Intel which came under heavy fire due to its CPU security flaws, and is receiving applications for class action lawsuits. "The high-tech team of law firm Damwoo is composed of experts on computer and IT technology laws and has conducted in-depth legal reviews of the seriousness of the 'meltdown' defect for a long time," Damwoo said in its homepage. Damwoo is mulling over whether to file a damage lawsuit against Intel in connection with the CPU-gate in Korea or the US. In Korea, it is not easy to file a class action because a plaintiff has to prove the amount of specific damage, Damwoo says. [GN] INTEL CORP: Securities Law Firms Mull Class Suits Over Chip Flaw ---------------------------------------------------------------- Agence France-Presse reports that securities law firms announced on Jan. 8 that they were pursuing investigations of a flaw affecting Intel chips as a prelude to class-action litigation against the company. The Rosen Law Firm is probing "allegations that Intel may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public," it said, adding it is "preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Intel investors." Similar announcements came from Levi & Korsinky, Block & Leviton and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, with the firms also pointing to reports that Intel chief executive Brian Krzanich sold Intel stock in November months after the company was informed of the defect by Google. Intel shares were under pressure after researchers pointed to the so-called Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities affecting the chips powering most modern PCs and many mobile devices. Researchers at Google showed how a hacker could exploit the flaw to get passwords, encryption codes and more, even though there have been no reports of any attacks using the vulnerability. Intel said that it has issued updates for more than 90 percent of the processor products introduced in the last five years. The company has described the issue as an industry-wide problem and said it is working with other technology companies to address the issue. Mr. Krzanich sold $39 million worth of stock on November 29, netting $25 million in profits, according to an article on Jan. 8 in The Wall Street Journal, which quoted analysts and lawyers who said the transactions could raise questions with regulators. Intel did not immediately respond to a request for comment from AFP. [GN] JUST FOR LAUGHS: Rozon to Challenge Sexual Assault Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Montreal Gazette reports that the founder of the Just for Laughs Festival intends to mount a legal challenge against a class- action suit being sought against him by several women alleging sexual assault. A group is seeking court authorization to mount a class-action in the names of all women who say they were sexually assaulted by Gilbert Rozon, and is seeking millions in damages. In a court document obtained by the Journal de MontrÇal, Mr. Rozon's three lawyers wrote that "the defendant intends to contest the authorization of a class-action suit." Mr. Rozon's lawyers said it's possible he will contest the version of facts alleged by his accusers. This is the first time Rozon has addressed any of the multitude of allegations that were made against him since he announced his resignation in October from the Just for Laughs Festival. A total of 20 women are part of the potential class action suit, claiming damages dating between 1982 and 2016. If the suit is successful, anyone who has been a victim of Mr. Rozon could be eligible for financial compensation. The class-action request calls Mr. Rozon a sexual predator who took advantage of the "silence, embarrassment and the fears of his victims to continue his predatory behaviour." Among the alleged victims is Patricia Tulasne, who is claiming $400,000 for at least one incident that took place in 1994. She said since the events occurred, she has not been able to establish a trusting relationship with a man, according to the documents. Mr. Tulasne was one of several women to denounce Mr. Rozon in the #metoo or #MoiAussi wave that has been gathering steam on social media in recent months to denounce predatory men. The lawyers representing the group say they are seeking a large financial penalty to act as a deterrent. [GN] KENYA POWER: Class Action Mulled Over Incorrect Electric Billing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Kubania, writing for Daily Nation, reports that Energy CS Charles Keter has assured Kenyans that they would not pay more for electricity, contradicting a report by Kenya Power that power bills would be backdated to recover a Sh8.1 billion deficit. Mr Keter said that the inconsistent power bills experienced by customers recently were as a result of an imperfect billing system that estimated meter readings instead of taking actual readings. INFLATED BILLS "What we are facing is a billing fluctuation following an upgrade in billing systems by KPLC, which is being resolved on a case-by- case basis. Kenya Power has called on any customer who has a complaint to visit their offices for assessment and review of their accounts for swift resolution," he said. The CS further said that no bills have been backdated and tariffs have not changed, pointing out that it would take a lengthy process by the Energy Regulation Commission (ERC) to introduce new power tariffs. In a statement Kenya Power said it would backdate its customers' bills to fund a deficit occasioned by a high fuel cost charge in 2017. This was a result of using thermal generators to make up for loss of hydropower due to the prolonged drought. UPROAR The announcement raised an uproar, with many of its consumers complaining that they are being forced to pay extortionate amounts in power bills. Users on social media have rallied behind a hashtag #switchoffKPLC to protest inflated power bills, with some saying that they are currently paying more than double what they were billed in the previous months. "I was billed Sh22,000 in December last year, up from an average of Sh6,000-7,000 a month. This is unacceptable and that is why I have added my voice to the protest. We are happy to pay what we owe but KPLC cannot bill us incorrectly and expect us to do nothing," said an outraged Jerotich Seii, one of the active accounts behind #switchoffKPLC. Former Law Society of Kenya boss Apollo Mboya has said that he is organising a class action suit against Kenya Power, ERC and the Ministry of Energy over incorrect billing. "What the minister has said is a confirmation of what we have long suspected -- that they have been billing us based on guesswork and not correct meter readings. We are still collecting data and so far have over 400 respondents on record who have supplied us with their previous and current power bills showing large increases in the past few months. We plan to file the suit," he said. Other than the inflated bills, the suit will also address power interruptions, malfunctioning equipment and a rise in the price of electricity tokens for prepaid customers. REMEDY Mr Keter, however, maintained that only 2.4 million customers under the old post-paid system have been affected by the inaccurate bills, and promised to have the issue sorted out once a new billing system is in place by the end of this month. "The new system also allows a consumer to self-read their meter and upload on an app on their phone to enhance billing accuracy," he said. The CS also announced that the ERC would standardise the pre-paid meter system to ensure that customers get the same number of tokens regardless of how many they buy at a go, as the old system, which staggers tariffs based on quantity, has been confusing many customers. There are 3.9 million pre-paid meter users. The company has 6.4 million customers in total. [GN] LG CHEM: May 8 Lithium Batteries Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- If You Bought a Lithium Ion Cell, Lithium Ion Battery, or Lithium Ion Battery Product, Class Action Settlements May Affect You. 1. Why did I get this Notice? You or your company may have directly purchased Li-Ion Cells, Li- Ion Batteries, and/or Li-Ion Products from January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2011. For purposes of the settlements, a direct purchaser is a person or business who bought a Li-Ion Cell, Li- Ion Battery, and/or Li-Ion Product directly from one or more of the Defendants, or any division, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, or any alleged co-conspirator (as opposed to an intermediary, such as a retail store) in the United States. You have the right to know about the litigation and about your legal rights and options before the Court decides whether to approve the settlements. The Notice explains the litigation, the settlements, and your legal rights. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the case is called In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-02420-YGR. The people who sued are called "Plaintiffs," and the companies they sued are called "Defendants." 2. Who are the Defendant companies? The Defendant companies include LG Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.; SANYO North America Corporation; Sony Corporation; Sony Energy Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; Maxell Corporation of America; NEC Corporation; TOKIN Corporation, formerly known as NEC TOKIN Corporation; and Toshiba Corporation. 3. What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of Li-Ion Cells for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and Li-Ion Products. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by agreeing to fix prices and restrict output of Li-Ion Cells by, among other things, face-to-face meetings and other communications, customer allocation, and the use of trade associations. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has not decided who is right. 4. What is the status of the litigation? Plaintiffs have now reached settlements with all of the Defendants in this Action. However, the litigation will continue in order to complete settlement approval, claims administration, and consider Plaintiffs' Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards. 5. What are Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and Li-Ion Products? For the purposes of the settlements, the following definitions apply: -- "Lithium Ion Battery Cell(s)" or "Li-Ion Cells" means the main components of Lithium Ion Batteries. A cell includes the cathode, anode, and electrolyte. -- "Lithium Ion Battery" or "Li-Ion Battery" means a cylindrical, prismatic, or polymer battery that is rechargeable and uses lithium ion technology. -- "Lithium Ion Battery Products" or "Li-Ion Products" means products manufactured, marketed, and/or sold by Defendants, their divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates, or their alleged co- conspirators that contain one or more Lithium Ion Battery Cells manufactured by Defendants or their alleged co-conspirators. Lithium Ion Battery Products include, but are not limited to, notebook computers, cellular (mobile) phones, digital cameras, camcorders, and power tools. 6. What is a class action? In a class action, one or more people, called class representatives, sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All these people are members of the class, except for those who exclude themselves from the class. Important information about the case will be posted on the website www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com as it becomes available. Please check the website to be kept informed about any future developments. THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES 7. How do I know if I'm part of the settlement classes? The settlement classes include persons and entities who, from January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2011, bought a Li-Ion Cell, Li-Ion Battery, and/or Li-Ion Product directly from one or more of the Defendants, or any division, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, or any alleged co-conspirator (as opposed to an intermediary, such as a retail store) in the United States. 8. What do the settlements provide? The settlements provide for payments totaling $70,450,000.00 in cash as follows: Samsung SDI -- $24.5 million; LG Chem -- $41 million; TOKIN -- $4.95 million. The LG Chem and Samsung SDI settlements also provide for continuing cooperation, including the production of witnesses, in case there is a trial. In addition, Settling Defendants' sales remain in the case for the purpose of computing damages against any remaining Defendants in the event of trial. In return for these payments, settlement class members are required to give up the claims asserted in this lawsuit. More details are in the settlement agreements, available at www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com. 9. When can I get a payment? Distribution of the Samsung SDI, LG Chem, and TOKIN settlement funds will be made, along with settlement funds from previous settlements totaling $68,850,000.00 with the Sony, Maxell, NEC, Panasonic, and Toshiba Defendants, on a pro rata basis once the Court finally approves these settlements and authorizes distribution of the settlement funds. You must submit a claim to participate in the distribution. Attached to this Notice is a Proof of Claim Form that has been approved by the Court. All claims must be submitted online or postmarked by April 26, 2018, to the address provided on the Proof of Claim Form. Additional Proof of Claim Forms may be obtained at www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, by calling 1-844-778-5952, or by writing to In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4098, Portland, OR 97208-4098. Please do not contact the Court about claim administration. The settlement funds will be allocated on a pro rata basis based on the dollar value of each class member's purchase(s) of Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and/or Li-Ion Products in proportion to the total claims filed. For purposes of determining the pro rata allocation of the settlement funds, purchases of Li-Ion Batteries and/or Li-Ion Products will be valued according to the proportionate value of the Li-Ion Cells contained in the product. This will be determined by the number of cylindrical cells, or equivalent (by capacity) prismatic or polymer cell, typically contained in particular finished products or battery packs. For example, laptop computers typically contained six (6) cylindrical cells. Camcorders typically contained four (4) cylindrical cells. Cell phones and digital cameras typically contained one (1) prismatic cell of approximately one half the capacity and price of a typical cylindrical cell. These will count as one half of a cylindrical cell. If a class member purchased batteries or packs, or other products, they will be valued according to the number of cylindrical cells, or equivalent (by capacity) prismatic or polymer cell, they contained. The resulting amounts will be multiplied by the net settlement funds (total settlements plus accrued interest minus attorneys' fees, expenses, and class representative incentive awards) to determine each claimant's pro rata share of the Settlement Fund. 10. What are my rights in the settlement classes? Remain in the settlement classes: If you wish to remain a member of the settlement classes, you do not need to take any action at this time. Get out of one or more of the settlement classes: If you wish to keep your rights to sue LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and/or TOKIN about claims concerning the manufacture, supply, distribution, sale, or pricing of Li-Ion Cells -- other than indirect purchaser claims, claims based on foreign purchases, or claims for product liability, personal injury, or breach of contract claims not related to the allegations in this case -- you must exclude yourself from the settlement class(es) relating to the Defendant(s) you wish to retain your rights to sue. You will not get any money from the settlements from which you exclude yourself. To exclude yourself from one or more of the settlement classes, you must send a letter that includes the following: -- Your name, address, and telephone number (include trade or business names, and address, and telephone numbers); -- A statement saying that you want to be excluded from the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff settlement class in In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-02420-YGR, as to each Defendant (LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and/or TOKIN) for which you wish to retain your rights to sue; and -- Your signature. You must mail your exclusion request, postmarked no later than March 1, 2018, to the following address: In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4098 Portland, OR 97208-4098 Remain in the settlement classes and object: You can ask the Court to deny approval of one or more of the settlements by filing an objection. You can't ask the Court to order larger settlements; the Court can only approve or deny the settlements. If the Court denies approval of a settlement, no payments from that settlement will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. You may object to the proposed settlements in writing. You may also appear at the Fairness Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly identify the case name and number (In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-02420-YGR), (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before March 1, 2018. 11. What am I giving up to stay in the settlement classes? Unless you exclude yourself from the relevant settlement class(es), you can't sue LG Chem, Samsung SDI, or TOKIN, or be part of any other lawsuit against LG Chem, Samsung SDI, or TOKIN, about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all of the decisions by the Court will bind you. The "Release of Claims" included in the settlement agreements includes any causes of actions asserted or that could have been asserted in the lawsuit, as described more fully in the settlement agreements. The settlement agreements are available at www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com. THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING 12. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlements? The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 p.m. on May 8, 2018, at United States District Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the settlement class website for information. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them at that time. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlements. We do not know how long these decisions will take. 13. Do I have to attend the hearing? No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you file or mail an objection, you don't have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you filed or mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay another lawyer to attend, but it's not required. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 14. Do I have a lawyer in the case? Yes. The Court has appointed the law firms of Saveri & Saveri, Inc.; Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; and Berman Tabacco to represent you as "Class Counsel." You do not have to pay Class Counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, and have that lawyer appear in court for you in this case, you may hire one at your own expense. The contact information for Class Counsel is as follows: Class Counsel R. Alexander Saveri Geoffrey C. Rushing SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Bruce L. Simon PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 15. How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will also submit an Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards to be heard at the same time as the Fairness Hearing on May 8, 2018. Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees of 30% of the total settlement funds of $139,300,000 (the sum of $70,450,000 from the current settlements and $68,850,000 from previous settlements with the Sony, Maxell, NEC, Panasonic and Toshiba Defendants), or $41,790,000. Class Counsel will also request reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses not to exceed $3,900,000, in accordance with the provisions of the settlement agreements. Class Counsel may also request that an amount be paid to each of the class representatives who helped the lawyers on behalf of the whole class (known as an "incentive award"). Lead Counsel will file their Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards on or before February 8, 2018. On the same day, Lead Counsel will post their Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards on the settlement website, www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com. You may comment on or object to Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards by following the procedure set forth in Question 10 above. Any comment or objection must be filed with the Court or postmarked by March 1, 2018. GETTING MORE INFORMATION 16. How do I get more information? This notice summarizes the proposed settlements. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlements, please see the settlement agreements available at www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, by contacting Class Counsel at the addresses listed above under Question 14, by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov (using the instructions provided here: cand.uscourts.gov/existcasefaq and here: pacer.gov/psc/faq.html), or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THESE SETTLEMENTS OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. BY ORDER OF THE COURT Dated: December 22, 2017 LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Plaintiffs Dismiss Derivative Actions ------------------------------------------------------- This notice relates to a proposed voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs in each of four pending shareholder derivative actions, and is being given pursuant to an order of The United States District Court for the District of Utah. The purpose of the notice is to advise LifeVantage shareholders that plaintiffs in the below-referenced actions wish to voluntarily dismiss their cases. Additional information on the actions and right to intervene may be found below. THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION As previously reported, 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 (later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. On June 15, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of LifeVantage and the other defendants and dismissing the case with prejudice. On October 17, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation whereby lead plaintiffs agreed not to take an appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants in exchange for mutual releases, without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants. This case is now concluded. THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS Also, as previously reported, on October 11, 2016, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Third District Court of the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, entitled Johnson v. Jensen, Case No. 160906320 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016), and Rupp v. Jensen, Case No. 160906321 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016). In these actions (which are substantively identical), plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleged that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the matters alleged in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the Johnson case number, with the new caption In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation. On January 10, 2017, the Court approved a stipulation between the parties providing that this action would be deferred (i.e., stayed) pending a ruling on defendants' then-anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. On January 30, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Hansen v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17 cv- 00075-DN (D. Utah filed Jan. 30, 2017). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleged that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and members of the board of directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n(a), and breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the matters alleged in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. On March 30, 2017, the parties entered into a stipulation providing that this action would be stayed pending a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. On February 27, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Baker v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-PMW (D. Utah filed Feb. 27, 2017). Also, on April 24, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Inforzato v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00317-JNP (D. Utah filed Apr. 24, 2017). In these actions, plaintiffs, also purportedly on behalf of the Company, made similar allegations as the plaintiff in Hansen v. Jensen, described above. The parties in Baker and Inforzato similarly agreed to stays of those actions pending a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss in the securities class action lawsuit noted above. VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS Following and in light of the dismissal with prejudice of the securities class action lawsuit noted above, the Company requested that the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative actions agree to dismiss their lawsuits voluntarily and without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. Thus, on October 31, 2017, the plaintiffs in In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation stipulated to voluntary dismissal of their consolidated action without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On November 17, 2017, the parties in Inforzato, Hansen and Baker stipulated to voluntary dismissal of those actions without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company. On November 27, 2017, the Court in Inforzato ordered, pursuant to Rule 23.1(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the parties give notice to shareholders of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Inforzato action before the Inforzato action could be dismissed. The Company also is providing notice herein of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation, the Baker action and the Hansen action. THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE INFORZATO ACTION Any LifeVantage shareholder may seek to intervene as a plaintiff in the Inforzato action if he, she, or it (1) owns shares in LifeVantage and (2) wishes to pursue the claims in Inforzato or has any reason why any of the aforementioned actions should not be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. All motions to intervene must be filed with the clerk of the court within thirty (30) days hereof. Every motion to intervene must contain: (1) the caption of the Inforzato action; (2) the intervenor's name, address and phone number; (3) proof or certification of the date the intervenor purchased LifeVantage stock; and (4) any supporting papers, including all documents and writings that the intervenor desires the Court to consider. Any motions to intervene must be filed with the District Court at: Clerk of Court United States District Court for the District of Utah 351 South West Temple, Rm. 1.100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 A copy of any motion to intervene must also be mailed to: Milo Steven Marsden Dorsey & Whitney LLP 111 South Main Street, Suite 2100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176 John P. Stigi III Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Attorneys for Defendants Darren Jensen, David S. Manovich, Dave Toole, Garry Mauro, George E. Metzger, Michael A. Beindorff, Richard Okumoto, Mark Jaggi, Raymond B. Greer, Vinayak R. Hegde and Darwin K. Lewis, and Nominal Defendant LifeVantage Corporation Nelson Abbott Abbott Law Firm 3651 North 100 East, Ste. 350 Provo, Utah 84604 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Inforzato About LifeVantage Corporation LifeVantage Corporation -- http://www.lifevantage.com-- is a science-based health, wellness and anti-aging company dedicated to helping people transform themselves internally and externally at a cellular level. Its scientifically-validated product lines include Protandim(R) Nrf2 and NRF1 Synergizers, TrueScience(R) Anti-Aging Skin Care Regimen, Petandim(R), AXIO(R) Smart Energy and the PhysIQ(TM)Smart Weight Management System. LifeVantage (Nasdaq:LFVN) was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. [GN] LOBLAWS COS: $25 GC Won't Impact Consumers' Class Action Right -------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Evans, writing for CBC News, reports that Jan. 8 was the first opportunity for consumers to sign up to receive a $25 gift card from Loblaws related to the grocer's role in fixing the price of bread for more than a decade, but the agreement comes with some fine print. Late last year, Loblaws announced it would give out the cards as an olive branch to customers who were angered by the grocer's admission that it had conspired to inflate the price of packaged bread between 2002 and 2015. Customers were directed to a website, loblawcard.ca, which was, prior to Jan. 8, short on specifics. However, the website is now updated with a sign-up form and more detail on the program. For the first time, the retailer has included a full list of products that saw their prices hiked up. They are packaged bread products from: -- Ben's Bread. -- Bon Matin Bread. -- Country Harvest Bread. -- Dempster's Bread. -- D'Italiano Bread. -- Gadoua Bread. -- McGavin's Bread. -- No Name Bread. -- Old Mill Bread. -- POM Bread. -- Weston Bread. -- Wonder Bread. Anyone who purchased any of those products at any Loblaws store - - which includes brands like No Frills, Superstore, Provigo, Zehrs and many others -- between 2002 and March of 2015 is entitled to participate, and no proof of purchase is required. Loblaws says it reserves the right to limit the number of cards that will be issued under the program, although the site doesn't include a number where it might be capped. Previously, the company had suggested that it was expecting between three and five million Canadians would sign up, bringing the price tag to up to $150 million worth of gift cards. The cards will have no expiry date, Loblaws says, but the same can't be said for the program itself: anyone who wants to participate must do so by May 8. The card also has to be used for food products. Holders can't use them to buy alcohol, tobacco, gasoline or cash withdrawals at in-store ATMs. The size, scope and longevity of the price-fixing scandal has prompted a number of class-action lawsuits against the company, and Loblaws says at the top of the website that participating in the rebate program doesn't preclude someone from participating in one of those suits. But fine print at the bottom of the sign-up form itself makes it clear that if you sign up, $25 will be deducted from any potential payouts from lawsuits down the line. "Agreeing to this release will not impact your right to participate in any class actions relating to an overcharge on the price of packaged bread," the fine print reads. "However, doing so will mean that twenty-five (25) dollars will be deducted from any compensation that you may otherwise be entitled to receive in any class action judgment against, or settlement with, Loblaw relating to any overcharge on the price of packaged bread in the period between January 1, 2002 and March 1, 2015." Michael Vathilakis, a partner at a law firm attempting to certify a class action against the company, said the gift card plan is pure "PR spin" from a company that has abused the public's trust and is looking for the cheapest way out. "They've unilaterally decided that they are going to remove it from any additional compensation you may receive by way of a class action lawsuit, settlement judgment or otherwise," he told CBC News in an interview. "My advice would be read the fine print." Another firm, Sotos LLP, which is also organizing a suit, had the following advice for people after the details of the offer came out: "We are recommending that class members wait to register for the card." Participating in the program also requires consumers to give up a lot of personal information, including their name, date of birth, address and other contact information -- mainly because the company needs that in order to mail out the cards in the first place. While data like that is a goldmine to retailers, Loblaws says it will not use the information for marketing purposes. "We will not use the personal Information provided to participate in the Loblaw Card Program to market to you, unless we have already obtained your consent to do so," the company says in the agreement. Despite the strings attached, Prof. Steve Tissenbaum of the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University in Toronto suspects that millions of Canadians will sign up, and turn a blind eye to any downsides in the process. "There will be millions of people that will take advantage of getting the $25," he said in an interview, "but I don't know how many people are upset." Many will simply take the offer of what appears to be free money. "If someone wants to give me some money -- I will take it." [GN] LOBLAW COS: Judge Favors Consumers in Price-Fixing Case ------------------------------------------------------- Canadian consumers obtained an important victory in Loblaw's admitted price fixing conspiracy on Jan. In a proceeding brought by Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, The Honourable Justice Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Jan. 9 ruled that Loblaw will not be able to deduct the $25 value it has placed on the gift card it is providing consumers unless it demonstrates that it is fair to consumers as part of an overall resolution of their price-fixing claims. In his ruling, Justice Morgan wrote, "When taking up the card offer, the consumer is advised that the card may ultimately replace $25 in settlement value, but that is not for certain. On the other hand, Loblaw has advised of its intention to offset the card against any eventual award or settlement, but that is equally not for certain. Both Loblaw (like the other defendants) and the consumer/class members will have the opportunity of presenting any eventual settlement for approval by the court at the time, and that will be based on the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement overall . . . it does not bar substantive review of any class action settlement at the end of the review process." On December 19, 2017 Loblaw announced that it was offering consumers a $25 card to restore consumer confidence in the company after admitting anti-competitive conduct. However, Loblaw was unclear about the cards' redemption terms. Once Loblaw's website to enable consumers to register for the card became operational on January 8, 2017, it became clear that Loblaw required consumers to agree that any future amounts awarded in any civil settlement would be discounted by $25 if the consumer accepted the card. In all class actions, the court must approve a settlement, and the court held that whether any credit must be given by consumers for the card Loblaw issues them be reserved until the class actions against Loblaw are settled. Strosberg Sasso Sutts' motion stemmed from Loblaw's refusal to disclose the value of what the consumers' loss was over the 14 years that it admitted to its participation in an industry-wide price-fixing conspiracy for bread. Loblaw sought to offset its civil liability in the class actions in the amount that equals the value of the cards that it issues. David R. Wingfield -- dwingfield@strosbergco.com -- Partner at Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP and expert in competition law argued before the Court that Loblaw should not be allowed to offset its liability now because the company has not made a meaningful disclosure about what the conspiracy to fix the price of bread has cost Canadian consumers over 14 years. Without such disclosure, Canadian consumers cannot make an informed decision about whether to accept the coupon because Loblaw refuses to disclose the extent to which consumers were harmed. "We are very pleased that the Court agreed with our argument, "said Mr. Wingfield. "If Loblaw wishes to offer a goodwill gesture and give consumers a coupon to be used in their stores, it is within their right to do so," said Mr. Wingfield. "However, the moment they ask to limit their liability based on the card without court supervision, there is a problem. This judgment confirms that the court's supervisory role can't be removed by Loblaw's unilateral action." Loblaw and its parent company George Weston Ltd. disclosed the conspiracy to the Competition Bureau of Canada in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution. However, the companies are still liable in civil actions. Strosberg Sasso Sutts filed a Class Action on November 8, 2017, over a month before Loblaw admitted its participation in the scandal. Jay Strosberg -- jay@strosbergco.com -- Co-Managing Partner, Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP said, "The judge's ruling was morally and ethically appropriate. Loblaw will likely incur a heavy cost as a result of this theft; but the company should be subject to the same process as the consumers who were victimized. The Court rightfully sided with millions of Canadian consumers." About Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP is a Canadian class action law firm with offices in Windsor and Toronto. Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP has recovered more than $1 billion for its clients. Its lawyers have been involved in some of Canada's most important class actions in Canada including the Walkerton class action, the Ticketmaster Class Action, Money Mart class action and the Hepatitis-C class action against the Federal and Provincial governments. [GN] LTD FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Bordeaux" Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Katharine S. Hayden granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00243-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.). According to the Court's opinion, the Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c3L3G79w MARATHON PETROLEUM: Settles Storage Tank Explosion Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Gerstein, writing for The Detroit News, reports that Marathon Petroleum Co. has agreed to settle a federal class- action lawsuit stemming from a 2013 storage tank explosion, according to a court document and a law firm. In December, Findlay, Ohio-based Marathon agreed to pay the two who filed the suit -- Anna Widdis and Jason Bastien -- $1,000 each and distribute $100 gas gift cards to the first 200 other plaintiffs in the class-action suit, according to Hertz Schram PC, the law firm with offices in Detroit and Bloomfield Hills that represented them. The preliminary settlement awaits final approval by Ann Arbor U.S. District Judge Judith Levy of the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the Liddle & Dubin law firm. Marathon also agreed to rebuild an above-ground storage tank for $1.4 million and modify another tank for an $650,000 as part of the settlement agreement. The company will pay $22,000 in attorney fees for class counsel and up to $11,000 for costs and expenses related to the administration of the settlement, notice and claims process. The settlement is unrelated to a separate federal class-action lawsuit involving Marathon in which more plaintiffs claimed injuries due to harmful air pollution from the southwest Detroit refinery. Marathon on Jan. 9 did not immediately return requests for comment. In court, attorneys Elizabeth Thomson and Laura Sheets at Liddle & Dubin represented the plaintiffs, who lived in a neighborhood near the Marathon oil refinery in Detroit close to the Rouge River and the border with Melvindale. They alleged nuisance and negligence based on an explosion and fire on April 27, 2013, at the Marathon refinery that harmed the plaintiffs, including "loss and enjoyment of their property," according to the agreement. Marathon opposed the district court's approval for class-action certification. The company appealed in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2014, but the appeal failed because there was "insufficient reason to proceed with Marathon's appeal," according to the settlement agreement. In the suit, plaintiffs alleged that Marathon was negligent by "failing to design, monitor, or maintain the above-ground storage tank" that caught fire and exploded in April 2013. They allege the explosion interfered with their enjoyment and use of property, although Marathon at first "vigorously denie(d) any and all liability in this action," according the settlement notice. The plaintiffs agreed to drop claims of nuisance and loss of enjoyment of property and other personal injury due to "airborne pollution, emissions, releases, spills and discharges to the atmosphere, exposure to hazardous substances, air contaminants, toxic pollutants, particulates or odors emanating in the air from the Marathon refinery," according to the agreement. That includes any past or present damage from air pollution or contamination and any personal injury that manifested prior to the settlement agreement, but does not cover lasting, diagnosed medical injury. [GN] MDL 2800: Credit Union Suit over Consumer Data Breach Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- FORT MCCLELLAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04994- TWT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages as well as equitable relief on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated financial institutions in the United States. The Plaintiff brings this class action on its own behalf and on behalf of other financial institutions that have suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses as a direct result of Equifax's failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect the personal identifying information of some 145.5 million U.S. consumers, credit card numbers of some 209,000 consumers, and dispute information from some 182,000 consumers, that was stored in its data systems. According to the complaint, despite repeated warnings from security experts about the risk of data breaches and numerous data breaches by multiple companies and even by Equifax competitor Experian, another credit reporting agency, over the past few years, Equifax failed to comply with industry standards and its statutory and common law duties to protect confidential, personal identifying and credit information. On September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly acknowledged a cybersecurity incident/data breach that has potentially impacted some 143 million U.S. consumers, or approximately half of all U.S. consumers who have credit histories. Equifax admitted that it discovered this data breach on July 29, 2017, and that the unauthorized access to Equifax's Confidential Consumer Data began in mid-May 2017. In other words, Equifax's data security was so deficient that they did not realize that their data systems had been hacked for more than two months, leaving Confidential Consumer Data exposed and accessible before it finally realized a breach had occurred. Rather than timely disclose its data breach, Equifax waited almost 6 weeks to publicly disclose the occurrence. In the interim, three Equifax executives sold some $1.8 million of Equifax stock. These executives include Chief Financial Officer John Gamble, who sold approximately $946,000 worth of Equifax stock on August 1, 2017; President of United States Information Solutions Joseph Loughran, who sold approximately $584,000 of Equifax stock, also on August 1, 2017; and President of Workforce Solutions Rodolfo Ploder, who sold approximately $250,000 of Equifax stock on August 2, 2017. On October 2, 2017, Equifax disclosed that the Confidential Consumer Data of an additional 2.5 million U.S. consumers had been exposed in the Equifax Data Breach. Thus, some 145.5 million U.S. consumers' Confidential Consumer Data was disclosed by Equifax. As Equifax's CEO admitted: "The company failed to prevent sensitive information from falling into the hands of wrongdoers. [T]he breach occurred because of both human error and technology failures." Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million individual consumers and 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. N. Kirkland Pope, Esq. GA Bar No. 584255 POPE McGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523 7706 Facsimile: (404) 524 1648 E-mail: efile@pmkm.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322 8880 Facsimile: (205) 328 2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com MDL 2800: Feb. 9 Hearing on Bids to Appoint Case Leaders -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr entered an order dated Jan. 12, 2018, Scheduling Hearing on Applications for Leadership Appointments for Feb. 9, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 2108, in the multi- district litigation, MDL No. 2800. The case styled as Bruce Kalmick, Paul Marrs and Tammi Marrs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated the, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No.1:17-cv-00954- SS (W.D. Tex., October 6, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 17- cv-05461 (N.D. Ga.). A conditional transfer order was entered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 27, consolidating the case into MDL No. 2800.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jarrett Stone, Esq. Paul Colley, Jr., Esq. COLLEY & COLLEY LLP 12912 Hill County Blvd Suite F-234 Austin, TX 78738 Telephone: (512) 477-2001 Facsimile: (512) 477-3335 Email: jarrett@colleylaw.net Email: paul@colleylaw.net Defendant is represented by: Kevin M. Clark, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-3200 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290 Email: kclark@kslaw.com MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Blanchard" Suit in S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical and Professional Collection Services Inc. The case is captioned as Julie Blanchard, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Medical and Professional Collection Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01309-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill., Dec. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Herndon. In an Order dated January 11, 2018, Judge Herndon granted Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant, the judge said, has up to and including January 27, 2018, to file its responsive pleadings to plaintiff's class action complaint. Medical and Professional provides collection agency services for Evansville, Newburgh, Owensboro, Henderson, Vincennes, Southwest Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois and the Midwest including Medical, legal, business to business, consumer and retail collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS ET AL. 20 South Clark St., Ste. 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 E-mail: ccombs@edcombs.com fgreene@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com dedelman@edcombs.com MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Answer to "Hobbs" TCPA Suit Due Feb. 16 --------------------------------------------------------- KEITH HOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL GUARDIAN LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05462-TJS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Beginning June 13, 2017 and continuing through on or about July 20, 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -7558 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services or products. Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to Defendant, including without limitation (561) 220-9418. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephones pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section. Furthermore, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -7558 has been on the National Do-Not- Call Registry since at least on or about March 23, 2017, or in any case, well over 30 days prior to Defendant's initial calls. The Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on its cellular telephones beginning in or around June of 2017 and continued until in or around July of 2017. The Plaintiff requested for Defendant to stop calling Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from Defendant, thus revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed. Despite this, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. * * * The Hon. Timothy J. Savage ruled on Jan. 23 that Medical Guardian LLC must file its answer by Feb. 16. In a separate order also on Jan. 23, Judge Savage said a pretrial conference shall be held on Feb. 13 at 8:30 a.m., in Room 9614, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, in Philadelphia. The Court directed the parties to make the required initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) within 14 days of the date of this order. By Feb. 7, counsel must complete and file with the clerk the required report of Rule 26(f) meeting. In a Dec. 7 Order, Judge Savage said the defendants Does 1 through 10 are dismissed; and the references in the complaint to the John Doe defendants are stricken. Medical Guardian is an American medical alert systems provider headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The company has appeared in Inc. Magazine's list of 5000 fastest-growing companies four years in a row from 2013 to 2016.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 1150 First Avenue, Suite 501 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (888) 595 9111 ext 618 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com MEMPHIS, TN: Special Master Appointed in Untested Rape Kits Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shelby Sansone, writing for Fox13, reports that a judge wants to speed up the court process for the lawsuit against the city for untested rape kits. Several plaintiffs filed a $10 million class action lawsuit against the city over the more than 12,000 untested rape kits. The kits made headlines in 2013 when it came to light the massive backlog in storage. More than 50 women came forward demanding pay from the city. Attorney Daniel Lofton represents the women, and says he will now treat the case as a class action to gather evidence. "It remains to be seen how many claimants will qualify under the class," he said. "When and if its certified, but it's in the thousands." The judge has appointed a special master for the case in order to stay on schedule. She put off both side's motions, but they did talk about how many people would fit in a class action. They also discussed how much of a cap will be made. "There's a difference between $700,000 limit versus a $10 mill. dollar limit," Mr. Lofton said. City leaders said Memphis cannot be held responsible for the backlog in previous meetings. [GN] MICHIGAN: Court Denies Class Certification in "Jones" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled CURTIS LEWIS JONES v. KENNETH MCKEE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094-PLM-TPG (W.D. Mich.). Kenneth McKee has been the deputy director of the Correctional Facilities Administration. The CFA is responsible for the operation of the state's prisons, including the Special Alternative Incarceration Facility. The Plaintiff filed a "motion for class certification pursuant to FRCP Rule 23(a); (a)(1)(A)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)." The Plaintiff is a prisoner and is acting pro se. The Plaintiff asserts that the Michigan Department of Corrections fails to provide all prisoners with Winter boots or Winter shoes. The Plaintiff concedes that prisoners on work detail are provided with Winter boots. "As a pro se prisoner, Plaintiff cannot represent members in a class action. Plaintiff cannot comply with the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)," Judge Greeley opines. "Plaintiff asserts that there are hundreds of prisoners who would join the class, and that he would adequately protect class members' interests. Plaintiff's claim regarding the number of prisoners who would join the class is speculative." "Moreover, Plaintiff has presented no evidence which could establish that he would adequately protect the interests of class members if this class certification is ordered. Plaintiff's motion is denied," Judge Greeley said. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WiHQYpYg MICROSOFT CORP: Grapples with Gender Salary Inequality Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Monegain, writing for HealthcareIT News, reports that Microsoft and Google are embroiled in lawsuits accusing them of paying men more than women for doing the same work -- which highlight the realities of gender inequality among women in technology and healthcare. Women health IT professionals, in fact, experienced a downward trend in salaries. A decade-long HIMSS study found that females were paid 81 percent what male counterparts made in 2006 but by 2016 that percentage had actually dropped to 78. Salary inequities strike to the core of the allegations against Google and Microsoft. In the Google case, Plaintiffs Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri, who previously worked for Google, alleged the company was practicing pay discrimination against women, charging that Google was paying female employees less than what it paid men doing the same jobs. And while California Superior court judge Mary Wiss denied their request for a class-action suit in December, the plaintiff's attorney, James Finberg, filed a new complaint that he said would make it clear "Google violates the California Equal Pay Act - by paying women less than men for substantially equal work in nearly every job classification." The revised lawsuit also asks for class-action status against Google claiming the company asked new hires about their prior salary, a practice banned in California. Finberg said Google's use of prior compensation to set starting pay for employees results in men receiving higher starting salaries and better career tracks. Because the company also sets job classification levels relative to prior pay, newly hired women will consistently make less than men over time, he writes. "Google's under-leveling of women not only resulted in Google paying them lower base salaries than if they had been properly leveled but also resulted in Google paying them smaller bonuses and fewer stock units and options than if Google had placed them in the proper level," the lawsuit contends. The suit now aims to represent women who hold the positions of engineer, manager, sales or early childhood education. The suit against Microsoft was filed by three female employees, who are seeking class-action status based on allegations dating back to a suit filed by Katherine Moussouris and two other female employees in September 2015. The three plaintiffs' lawyer asked for class-action status in October 2017. They also hired researchers to evaluate Microsoft's policies regarding promotions and salaries. The study showed big pay gaps between men and women doing similar work with similar results, they allege. If the plaintiffs in the Microsoft case were successful in gaining class-action status, it could mean more than 8,000 women would be added as plaintiffs in the case. Microsoft has refuted the allegations, saying there is no systemic bias in its review process. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Class Certification in Gender Bias Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Mulvaney, writing for Law.com, reports that Microsoft Corp. says, while the company is "keenly aware of gender imbalance in the tech industry," a federal class action seeking to advance the discrimination claims of more than 8,600 former and current female employees is not the right avenue to tackle the issue. "One can debate how best to address this important societal issue -- but the class allegations here are not the right vehicle for that debate," Microsoft's lawyers at Orrick say in their opposition to class certification. [GN] MISSISSIPPI FARM: Faces Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Britt v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, George "Bubba" Cole, Barry Patton, Brenda Wheat, Tina Stapp and Roy Weathers, Case No. 17-cv-00219 (N.D. Miss., December 28, 2017), is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as to claims for compensatory, liquidated and punitive damages, injunction prohibiting Farm Bureau from engaging in future wrongful conduct related to violations of Title VIII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, an injunction allowing her to return to work for Farm Bureau in her former position, back pay and front pay, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs. Britt, an insurance agent for Mississippi Farm Bureau, accuses Defendants of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, illegal termination and retaliation, malicious and intentional interference with contract/business relationships. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ray Hill, III, Esq. CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC P.O. DRAWER 676 Oxford, MS 38655 Tel: (662) 234-0900 Email: rhill@claytonodonnell.com MONKEY CAPITAL: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Silver Miller recently announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of individuals and entities who contributed bitcoin, Ether, or other cryptocurrency or fiat currency to the scheduled-but-cancelled 2017 Monkey Capital Initial Coin Offering (ICO). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is captioned Hodges, et al. v. Monkey Capital LLC, et al., Case No. 9:17-cv-81370-DMM (the "Lawsuit"). A copy of the Complaint filed in the Lawsuit can be seen at https://is.gd/egcjxT Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her/its choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Lawsuit, however, you must move the Court no later than March 12, 2018 to appoint you as the lead plaintiff. If you wish to discuss the Lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests as they relate to the Lawsuit, please contact plaintiffs' counsel David C. Silver of Silver Miller at (954) 516-6000 or DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com. The Complaint alleges that Monkey Capital LLC, Monkey Capital Inc., and the companies' founder and principal (Daniel Harrison) fraudulently promoted an ICO and engaged in an unregistered offering and sale of securities that violated numerous state and federal securities laws, including Sections 5, 12(a), 15, and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77e, 77l(a), 77o, and 77q(a). The Lawsuit pleads that the Court rescind all investments in Monkey Capital; return to all investors their cryptocurrency; require Monkey Capital to account for all funds raised from investors; and adjudicate that Monkey Capital and Mr. Harrison violated multiple securities laws when they promoted and abruptly abandoned the unregistered, pre-functional ICO. The plaintiffs are represented by Silver Miller -- the leading cryptocurrency investor law firm in the country, with actions currently pending against the Coinbase, Kraken, and Cryptsy exchanges as well as the first federally-filed class action lawsuit against heavily-embattled Tezos and its billion dollar July 2017 ICO. [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Lashock Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA LASHOCK, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02841-DDN (E.D. Mo., Dec. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659 9833 Facsimile: (618) 659 9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com - and - Peter A. Miller, Esq. MILLER DELLAFERA PLC 3420 Pump Rd., PMB 404 Henrico, VA 23233 Telephone: (800) 401 6670 Facsimile: (888) 830 1488 E-mail: pmiller@millerdellafera.com NASA SERVICES: "De Leon" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Kenny De Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NASA Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, the Defendant, Case No. BC682425, (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 3, 2017), seeks unpaid wages with damages, interest and other equitable relief based on violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment the Defendants failed to provide him with meal periods, failed to authorize and permit to take rest periods, failed to pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to pay the correct amount of overtime wages, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked, failed to timely pay all final wages when he terminated his employment and failed to furnish accurate wage statements. NASA Services own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County, for the purposes of providing garbage disposal services.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com Email: justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com NCCA: Antitrust Class Action Hearing Set ---------------------------------------- Sean Gregory, writing for Time, reports that the NCAA, the organization governing big-time college athletics, prevents schools from paying their players, even as they make millions for their coaches and schools. Saban and Smart made almost $15 million combined this year. "All today's players can hope for," says Jeffrey Kessler, a sports labor attorney who is leading a case against the NCAA, "is a better deal for the players that come after them." On January 16, in a federal district courtroom in Oakland, Calif., Judge Claudia Wilken will hold a hearing on motions for summary judgment in the case of Jenkins v NCAA, a class action suit that challenges the NCAA's compensation limits on athletes. Judge Wilken ruled on a similar case, the landmark O'Bannon v NCAA litigation, more than three years ago. While Judge Wilken found in that case that the NCAA rules unreasonably restrained trade in violation of anti-trust laws, she did not lift the restraints entirely. Schools could still limit their compensation for athletes to the cost-of-attendance stipend, meaning the players would not be paid according to their market value. The Jenkins case, however, makes a broader claim than O'Bannon. Whereas O'Bannon concerned a college athlete's ability to profit from the use of his or her likeness, Jenkins focuses on the market for signing college athletes to schools. It seeks to ends the NCAA's blanket wage restrictions, and allow individual athletic conferences to determine the levels at which players should be paid. Mr. Kessler, who has represented the players' unions of all four major U.S. professional sports leagues and helped NFL players win the right to become free agents in the early 1990s, is representing the Jenkins plaintiffs. One expert likens the two cases to the work of an offensive lineman clearing the way for a running back: O'Bannon did the legal blocking, says Marc Edelman, a professor of law at Baruch College's Zicklin School of Business, that could allow Jenkins to finally score big for college athletes. "The point of Jenkins is to create a universe in which the NCAA can no longer ubiquitously prevent college athletes from being paid," says Mr. Edelman. With more money sloshing around college sports every year, the case against paying players becomes increasingly difficult to justify. Saban made more than $11 million this season; Georgia paid Smart $3.75 million. Alabama pays two of its assistants -- defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt, the incoming head coach at Tennessee, and offensive coordinator Brian Daboll -- north of $1 million. Texas A&M just signed former Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher to a 10-year, $75 million deal; Fisher in turn just poached Notre Dame defensive coordinator Mike Elko with reported three-year contract at an average of $1.8 million a year. How much money should college athletes be paid? Why shouldn't this bounty trickle down to the players who generate it? Antitrust economist Andy Schwarz, a staunch advocate for reallocating more flush college sports revenues to athletes, envisions a scenario where schools reallocate 30% of incremental athletic department revenue growth to a fund that compensates athletes: 15% for male athletes, and 15% for female athletes. Schools can keep 70% of the new revenues, plus all old revenues. If Alabama, for example, had followed such a model over the past four years, the school would have set aside, on average, $2.9 million annually to pay athletes. Alabama would have kept an average of $149.5 million per year, or 98% of all revenues. "If schools ever want to get past their 'can't-don't' rhetoric and go for can-do solutions, all they need to do is just start fixing things," says Schwarz. "Divert new money and in a few years the budgets will have adjusted just fine." The Jenkins case will likely hinge on whether the plaintiffs can convince the court that the paying players won't adversely effect the college sports business. Anti-trust laws permit trade restraints -- like a cap on compensation -- if such restraints benefit consumers. In the O'Bannon case, the NCAA's lawyers argued that college football and basketball is popular because players don't get paid. Fans are attracted to the amateur ideal. In Jenkins, the NCAA will insist that the court has already established that paying players would hurt the college sports business, since in O'Bannon both Judge Wilken and an appellate court gave weight to a survey from an NCAA research expert showing that 69% of respondents expressed opposition to paying college athletes. Still, it's hard to imagine rabid college sports fans leaving stadiums and TV sets in droves just because students at their favorite schools receive payment for playing football or basketball -- which is why they're at the school in the first place. In so many pockets of America, college football's ingrained in the cultural DNA. Why would the tailgate lose its appeal when the star quarterback has an endorsement deal? Further, as part of the Jenkins case, attorneys for the plaintiffs have filed their own consumer demand study with the court. Their survey expert concluded, "to a high degree of scientific certainty," that additional compensation for college athletes would result in "no negative impact on consumer demand as exhibited through viewership /attendance of college football and basketball . . . If anything, permitting these additional forms of compensation/benefits could have a positive impact on such consumer demand." Decades of American behavioral economics bear this finding out. As player salaries have risen exponentially with the advent of free agency and technological innovations that distribute the games to broader audiences, sports have become even more popular. The business has only grown. Americans, it turns out, value fairness. "This case could make a great difference in the lives of those college players that will not make it to the pros," says Mr. Kessler. If it lives up to expectations, the Alabama-Georgia title game may be remembered for a long time. But the year's most lasting college sports moment could unfurl in a courtroom. [GN] NEW YORK: Crime Drops After Stop-and-Frisk Policy Halted -------------------------------------------------------- Raychelle Muhammad. writing for Inquisitr, reports that in 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled in a class action suit against the city of New York that the stop-and-frisk policy violates that fourth and 14th Amendments. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other proponents of this style of policing unsuccessfully fought her decision. Bloomberg believed that the crime rate would increase exponentially, but recently released data indicates exactly the opposite. Nick Wing of The Huffington Post reported that crime rates have reached levels that the city hasn't seen since the 1950s. Mr. Wing said that according to the NYPD's preliminary reports, there were a total of 290 killings in New York in 2017 compared to 335 in 2016 and a staggering 2,295 in 1990. The number of other serious crimes, including assault, rape, car theft, and grand larceny, have steadily declined as well. Proponents of stop-and-frisk argued that it was necessary to concentrate this type of policing in high-crime areas, which just so happened to be in poor, minority neighborhoods. But Judge Scheindlin said in her 195-page decision that the policy was one of "indirect racial profiling," which was both "demeaning and humiliating" for communities where minorities resided. An article in the Washington Post defined stop-and-frisk as an NYPD policy which permits officers to detain, question, and search pedestrians if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed a crime, is in the process of committing a crime, or will soon commit one. The piece goes on to provide statistics showing the disproportionate application of the policy. According to the Public Advocate's office report, there were 532,911 stops made in New York in 2012. (The previous year came in at 685,724.) Of those stops in 2012, 53 percent of those persons were black, while 31 percent were Hispanic. New York City's population, however, was only 25 percent black and 29 percent Hispanic. New York City's current mayor, Bill de Blasio, campaigned to reduce the crime rate as he greatly opposed stop-and-frisk. According to Politico, Mayor de Blasio claimed that his administration kept its promise and solved the problem. The report that the outlet had already published indicated that the number of stops that occurred between early 2012 and late 2013 dropped by 94 percent. The mayor, however, did not take office until 2014, but the crime rate has steadily declined during his tenure. [GN] NORTH HIGHLAND: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Boose" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE BOOSE, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. THE NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY, a Georgia corporation; TRUEBRIDGE RESOURCES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC685662 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related relief under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other similarly situated current and former California-based hourly workers, including but not limited to, project managers, business analysts, and program managers, for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to pay all wages for all hours worked, provide all rest and meal periods, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages upon termination of employment, and fairly compete. North Highland is a worldwide, employee-owned management consulting firm established in 1992 and a founding member of Cordence Worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582 3086 Facsimile (818) 582 2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com logan@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com NORTHERN CONCRETE: Morgan's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William C. Griesbach entered a decision and order in the lawsuit styled DWAYNE MORGAN, et al. v. NORTHERN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01283-WCG (E.D. Wisc.): -- denying the expedited motion for leave to file a second amended complaint filed by Named Plaintiffs Dwayne Morgan, Clint Robinson, Paul Robinson, Michael Owens, Marques Stewart, Cornelius Buford, Shaun Saunders, Daunte Davis and Kendall Holmes. The Plaintiffs are directed to advise the Court and counsel for Northern Concrete whether Davis' per diem claim should be dismissed for failure to prosecute within the next 10 days; -- granting the Named Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as to the travel time class and denying as to the per diem class. The travel time class is certified as follows: All individuals referred to Northern Concrete by CSW who traveled from out of state to work for Northern Concrete in Wisconsin; -- approving the Named Plaintiffs' proposed notice form and proposed consent form for the travel time class, subject to certain correction. Members of the conditional class shall have 45 days from the mailing of the notice to opt into this action; and -- directing Northern Concrete to produce within 10 days of the date of the order a list, in an electronic importable format, containing the names and addresses of all individuals referred to Northern Concrete by CSW, who worked on a Northern Concrete jobsite in Wisconsin on or after September 26, 2013. A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ufwa8qk3 NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Sued Over Dilapidated Housing Complex ----------------------------------------------------------- Markeshia Ricks, writing for New Haven Independent, reports that the city and the owners of the dilapidated Church Street South housing complex have presented a united front when it comes to redeveloping the site. But when it comes to taxes and how much the owners should pay, they've essentially told each other, "I'll see you in court!" Northland Investment Corp., the Boston-based owner of the soon- to-be-demolished 301-unit subsidized apartment complex across from the train station, has taken the city to court over its most recent tax assessment. It is one of at least four lawsuits moving their way through state courts to resolve unfinished business with New Haven's biggest housing and public-health emergency in years. Northland, doing business under the name Church Street New Haven LLC, is appealing the assessed value of six parcels comprising the sprawling complex that deteriorated so badly that officials ordered it cleared out in order to protect tenants' lives. The company has asked a judge to do what the city's Board of Assessment Appeals refused to do last spring -- lower the tax bill. After allowing the apartment complex to fall into such disrepair that it was forced to find new homes for its tenants, Northland argues in its court filing that the six parcels with the crumbling buildings are worth less than what the city says they are. The filing doesn't specify how much less the company believe it's worth. Years-Long Relocation Nears End The land could be worth a lot more once the complex is torn down to make way for a bigger mixed-use development, which Northland and the city are looking to team up on raising financing to build. But for now the process of relocating tenants has taken two years, and 11 families remain. City housing authority Executive Director Karen DuBois-Walton said 260 families used the emergency opportunity to take their government subsidy to a landlord who would accept it. The majority of the families -- 229 to be exact -- remain within the housing authority's jurisdiction as renters under the federal Section 8 rental subsidy program, Ms. DuBois-Walton said. She said of the 11 remaining families, five have opted to remain on a project-based subsidy like they had at Church Street South, meaning the subsidy is tied to a location, not a family. "Northland works with [U.S. Housing and Urban Development] to identify landlords where the subsidy can be transferred," Ms. DuBois-Walton said. "We are not handling those." Three families with tenant-based vouchers are waiting for their new unit to pass an inspection before they can sign a lease and three are still looking for a place to live. Northland worked a deal with HUD that allowed it to transfer 82 of its project-based units to another federally subsidized complex in the city, Beechwood Gardens on Whalley Avenue. Worth Less? Back in October 2016, the city said that the following parcels at Church Street South had the following values: * 1 Tower Lane, fair market value: $596,200; assessed value: $417,340 * 86 South Orange St., fair market value: $3,118,500; assessed value: $2,182,950 * 91 Columbus Ave., fair market value: $1,198,500; assessed value: $838,950 * 94 Columbus Ave., fair market value: $2,148,000; assessed value: $1,503,600 * 89 Union Ave., fair market value: $1,292,000; assessed value: $904,400 * 169 Union Ave., fair market value: $1,386,400; assessed value: $970, 480 Northland filed an appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals this past April "claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the Assessors," according to the suit filed in Superior Court in June by attorney Michael D. Reiner. The board denied the appeal, prompting Northland to seek relief from the court. For each of the six parcels, Mr. Reiner wrote, "The valuation of this property placed thereon by the assessors was not that percentage of its true and actual value on the Assessment Date but was grossly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful. "The applicant appeals from the action and ruling of the Board of Assessment Appeals and prays that the valuation of this property on the Assessment date be reduced to 70 percent of its true and actual value," he further wrote. When contacted on Jan. 2, attorney Reiner said that he is not authorized to discuss anything about the case. The court filings don't say what Northland thinks the "true and actual" value of the parcels are. Pretrial conferences are slated for April and May, according to the state's judicial website. City spokesman Laurence Grotheer said in a statement, "It is both the policy and practice of the City of New Haven to withhold comment on matters about which there is pending litigation." From Plaintiff To Defendant Meanwhile, lawsuits against Northland/Church Street New Haven continue to wind their way through the court system. In November 2016, a class action suit was filed against Northland by attorney David Rosen on behalf of nearly 100 Church Street South tenants and in many cases their children. It was transferred from the Superior Court in New Haven to Waterbury in early 2017 (where a New Haven judge, Linda Lager, is assigned to the case). Court records show that it is headed for a status conference near the end of January. A plaintiff in the class action suit, Margret Brodie, has a separate slip and fall case pending against Northland. She alleges that on Feb. 15, 2015, Northland's failure to remove snow and ice caused her to fall and injure her right ankle, her spine and both her hands. She argues in the complaint that not only did she incur medical costs but it diminished her ability to work. Northland's response: Prove it. As part of its special defense, Northland's attorneys wrote, "Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any were caused by her own comparative negligence and, therefore, her recovery is barred or must be proportionately reduced in that: 1. she failed to keep a lookout; 2. she failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety under the circumstances there and existing; and 3. she failed to observe and avoid the alleged defect, the existence of which is denied." Northland made a cross-claim against the company that it had contracted to handle ice and snow removal, All-Around Home improvement. Northland argues that if Brodie is determined by the court to be owed damages, the contractor should be the one made to pay up. Brodie's case is scheduled for jury selection and trial in May, according to court records. A separate suit filed by a former tenant named Reuben Negron and his family, who lived at 34 Cinque Green in Church Street South, is also moving ahead in Waterbury Superior Court. Three expert witnesses recently submitted testimony to the court that they had inspected the apartment and found conditions of water damage and mold as had been reported by the city's anti-blight agency, Livable City Initiative, and the tenants. Master Code Professional Mark Tebbets told the court that he inspected Negron's former apartment back in July: "I was allowed access to only unit 15-B, however, the entire building appeared to be in poor condition. The extent of the deficiencies found in this one unit would indicate that the entire building was more than likely in the same extremely poor condition." He went on to write, "Every room in unit 15-B showed signs of deterioration, broken sheetrock, evidence of water leakage from the roof or wall infiltration and a prevalence of mold on the interior of walls. Inspection of the bathroom showed improper plumbing repairs of the drainage system and multiple repairs which appear to be done at various times. "All of the violations observed appeared to have existed for a considerable length of time," he further wrote. A hearing is scheduled for Negron's case is set for March; jury selection and trial is set to start in April. Northland has yet to file a response to that suit. [GN] OREGON: Discovery in Class Suit Against Prison Doctors Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Robert W. Snider. The case is styled as Chandra Loveland, Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dr. Robert W. Snider, Personally; Dr. S. Shelton, Personally; and D. Brown, Personally, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01884- AC (D. Oreg., Nov. 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. On Nov. 28, 2017, Judge Acosta entered a Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order, providing that: -- Discovery is to be completed by March 28, 2018. -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by April 27, 2018. -- Pretrial Order is due by April 27, 2018. Dr. Robert W. Snider, Dr. Steve Shelton and Dave Brown are medical administrators at Coffee Creek Correctional Institution in Wilsonville, Oregon's lone women's prison. According to an April 2017 report by The Oregonian, the physicians have been the subject of lawsuits by inmates claiming they were sexually abused while at prison. The report also said that earlier in 2017, the state agreed to pay $175,000 to a former inmate who alleged Dr. Snider sexually abused her during a gynecological exam in 2013.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN 4711 SW Huber Street, Suite E-3 Portland, OR 97219 Telephone: (503) 516 3715 Facsimile: (815) 642 9117 E-mail: easyrabbi@yahoo.com PALATINE, IL: Collins Ruling Ammunition for Defendants ------------------------------------------------------ Matthew H. Bunn, Esq. -- MHBunn@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that class actions are vexing for defendants. The exposure can be large and the litigation can become very complex. One way to defeat a class action is on statute of limitations grounds. However, in the seminal case on statutes of limitations in the class action context, American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), the Supreme Court held when a plaintiff files a complaint on behalf of a proposed class, and where certification is denied because of the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that "the class is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable," the statute of limitations for the claim is tolled for each member of the class. Id. at 552-53. There, the Supreme Court held the commencement of the original class suit tolled the running of the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class who timely moved to intervene after the district court found the suit was inappropriate for class action status. Later, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the Supreme Court held the same tolling rule applies to class members who choose to file separate suits. But neither opinion addressed whether tolling continues in other contexts, such as during the pendency of an appeal after the suit is dismissed or when class certification is denied. In other words, when does tolling stop? In Collins v. Village of Palatine, No. 16-3395, (7th Cir. 2017), the Seventh Circuit addressed whether a dismissal with prejudice strips a case of its class-action character, thereby restarting the clock on the statute of limitations. Collins concerned a class action against the Village of Palatine for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act by placing parking tickets on individuals' cars that displayed an individual's personal information. The district court entered summary judgment for the Village on the first class representative's suit and denied the motion for class certification as moot. When the next class representative, Collins, tried to revive the class action, the Village moved to dismiss arguing Collins's claim was time-barred because the statute of limitations resumed when the district court dismissed the first lawsuit with prejudice. Following American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal, the Seventh Circuit discussed how circuit courts have held the tolling of the statute of limitations for a class action ceases when the district court denies class certification or dismisses an uncertified class action without prejudice. The Seventh Circuit addressed the question of whether it matters for tolling purposes whether a suit is dismissed with prejudice or not. The court held it does not matter because upon dismissal, the parties are on notice that they must take steps to protect their rights. Accordingly, the court adopted the uniform rule that the statute of limitations, though tolled upon the filing of a class action, immediately resumes when an uncertified class claim is dismissed with or without prejudice. Overall, the Collins decision adds ammunition to the tool bag for parties defending class action lawsuits. If a defendant can obtain a quick dismissal with prejudice on a non-meritorious class claim, then the statute of limitations will continue to run and the clock will add pressure to the class members. Class action defendants should add Collins to their arsenal. [GN] PARKWAY TROPICS: Former Exotic Dancer Files Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- John Agar, writing for Mlive, reports that a former dancer at Parkway Tropics, an adult nightclub, says she and other dancers relied only on tips for wages, and were illegally required to share those gratuities with doormen, DJs and other non-tipped workers Ashley Cavazos filed a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status against the club and its owner, Edward Sayfie. She said that Parkway Tropics mis-classified dancers as independent contractors, instead of employees, and failed to provide dancers minimum wage and other benefits they were entitled to under state and federal laws. They were also illegally forced to share about 35 percent of their tips, as "rent," with other workers, attorney Robert Alvarez wrote in the lawsuit. Mr. Sayfie did not respond to messages seeking comment. A similar lawsuit against Deja vu nightclubs, on behalf of 28,000 exotic dancers across the country, was settled last year for $6.5 million in U.S District Court in Detroit, the Detroit Free Press reported. Dancers had to pay "rent" and share tips, essentially paying to do their work at the clubs. Parkway Tropics, once a topless club, has been a "bikini club" since 2006, when Grand Rapids enacted an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses. Cavasos worked there beginning in 2007, the lawsuit said. Mr. Alvarez wrote that exotic dancers, classified as independent contractors, did not receive any wages. Instead, they relied on gratuities. Then, they had to share tips with other workers, including managers, doormen, floor walkers and disc jockeys. They were threatened with retaliation if they tried to assert employment rights, Mr. Alvarez wrote. "Defendants knew or should have known that the business model employed was unlawful as applicable laws confirm that all money given to dancers by patrons was defined as a gratuity and the sole property of the dancer," Mr. Alvarez wrote. He said that dancers were not considered professional performers or artists exempt from labor laws. "The exotic dancing performed by Class members while working at the Parkway Tropics Nightclub does not require invention, imagination, or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor, and Class members have never been compensated by Defendants on a set salary, wage, or fee basis," Alvarez wrote. "Rather, Class members' sole source of income while working at the Parkway Tropics Nightclub were tips given them by patrons." He said tips should have belonged solely to dancers. Mr. Alvarez said dancers were illegally coerced to waive their legal rights and "elect to be treated as independent contractors. Defendants threaten to penalize and discriminate against dancers in the Class if they assert their statutory rights such as through termination and the confiscation of all dance tips, among other adverse conditions and retaliations." The club imposes strict rules on dancers regarding work schedules, breaks and requirements to help sell drinks. If late or absent, they are subject to a fine, penalty or reprimand, the lawsuit said. It said dancers are watched closely and required to pay part of each dance tip to the club as "rent." It typically amounts to around 35 percent of their tip. The lawsuit seeks back pay and a refund of tips that were shared, along with damages and penalties. The lawsuit is seeking class- action status for more than 100 workers, including current dancers and those who performed over the past three years. [GN] PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: $2.9B Settlement Sets Records -------------------------------------------------- Christopher P. Skroupa, writing for Forbes.com, reports that after a little more than three years of litigation, Petrobras, the largest natural gas and oil company in Brazil, entered into a settlement agreement to pay $2.95 billion to shareholders as a result of a securities class action filed against the company in December of 2014. Filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, this class action case set records across multiple fronts, such as being the largest class action involving a non- U.S. -issuer and -lead plaintiff. Making its way to being the fifth largest class action settlement ever achieved in the United States, the proposed settlement will be paid in three equal installments over the course of the next year. "Universities Superannuation Scheme, the largest private pension fund in the United Kingdom, diligently prosecuted this case as lead plaintiff to assist in securing a stunning sum in monetary damages for defrauded investors," says Jennifer Pafiti, Partner at Pomerantz LLP and one of the attorneys representing the class of defrauded investors. In line with significant losses to investors, the loss of billions of dollars in kickbacks, as well as tens of billions of dollars in overstated assets, were also a part of this "scheme." "The scandal involved a decades-long kickback and money- laundering scheme which has ensnared former executives of the company, as well as two former presidents of Brazil and at least 1/3 of Brazilian Congress," states Ms. Pafiti. Among it's record-breaking results, this class action stands out from others because, given its size, "there were a number of opt- outs," explains Pafiti. "One attraction for an investor to opt- out of a class action is to attempt to achieve a recovery with a premium over that achieved had the investor remained a passive class member." She continues, "Here, based on the charges taken by Petrobras relating to the opt-out settlements to date, this class settlement represents a significant premium over the settlement of the individual actions on a pro rata basis." Pomerantz's achievement is also significant for the precedent- setting decisions achieved during the litigation. During the class action, defendants appealed to the Southern District of New York court's opinion certifying classes of both purchasers of Petrobras equity and debt on multiple grounds, including failures to satisfy the requirement of ascertainability, and failure to satisfy the burden of showing that the Petrobras securities traded in efficient markets -- both of which were rejected by the court "In addition, throughout the course of this litigation, plaintiffs achieved important precedents at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals," said Jeremy Lieberman, Co-Managing Partner at Pomerantz, who oversees the litigation regarding Petrobras, "regarding the ascertainability requirement during class certification, as well as the utility of event studies for establishing predominance in securities class actions." Lieberman continued, "These precedents will form the bedrock of class action jurisprudence in the Second Circuit for decades to come. Simply put, this litigation and its ultimate resolution have yielded an excellent result for the Class." While Petrobras agreed to the settlement, a statement from their website on Jan. 3rd, 2018 explains that: "The agreement does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing or misconduct by Petrobras. In the agreement, Petrobras expressly denies liability. This reflects its status as a victim of the acts uncovered by Operation Car Wash, as recognized by Brazilian authorities including the Brazilian Supreme Court. As a victim of the scheme, Petrobras has already recovered $1.475 billion in restitution in Brazil, and will continue to pursue all available legal remedies from culpable companies and individuals." Satisfied with the result of the litigation, Ms. Pafiti says, "The settlement also serves as a reminder to companies, both foreign and domestic, who raise money by issuing stock on a U.S. exchange that when it comes to corporate misconduct, their investors will be afforded the protection provide by the U.S.'s robust securities fraud laws." [GN] PPG INDUSTRIES: Union Retirees Get ERISA Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ David Pryzbylski, Esq., of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that retiree benefits are a huge issue for many employers -- from pure economic cost to administrative burdens. Accordingly, some companies have moved to limit or cut such benefits entirely. Of course, when doing so, companies need to navigate various legal issues, including under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and, to the extent a union is in the picture, the National Labor Relations Act and/or Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). A federal court decision this month illustrates some of the complexities a company may encounter when attempting to reduce or eliminate retiree benefit costs. In a case that was initiated against PPG Industries, Inc. back in 2005, numerous retirees of various unions -- including the United Steelworkers and United Automobile Workers -- allege that PPG violated ERISA and the LMRA by breaching collective bargaining agreements that provided lifetime health insurance benefits to the retirees with the company bearing the full cost of the benefits. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that PPG violated the agreements by shifting some of the cost away from the company and to the retirees. On Jan. 5, the plaintiffs scored a win when a federal judge certified the plaintiffs as a class. That is, the lawsuit is formally progressing as a class action. PPG is hardly the only company facing litigation like this. For example, just last year the Steelworkers union secured a victory when it defeated a motion to dismiss and forced a company to arbitration over claims the employer slashed benefits for retirees in violation of a labor agreement. Accordingly, companies considering or implementing modifications to retiree benefits must thoroughly account for the myriad of legal issues that may be implicated by such changes. Developing a thoughtful strategy around the various laws in play may help limit possible legal obstacles or exposure. [GN] PRATT & WHITNEY: Acreage Residents Seek Cancer Case Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Musgrave, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that in a request jet-engine-maker Pratt & Whitney described as "unprecedented," a federal judge on Jan. 8 was asked to declare all 50,000 residents of The Acreage as potential beneficiaries of a lawsuit that accuses the military contractor of releasing cancer-causing toxins into the soil north of the sprawling community. "It's absurd to suggest an area of 60 square miles, with 18,000 properties and 50,000 people is in the vicinity" of Pratt's operations, which at the closest point are 6 miles away, said Chicago attorney Sean Gallagher, who represents the international company that has a plant on the Beeline Highway. Further, he said, there is no evidence chemicals used to test and manufacture jet engines migrated 6 miles -- much less 20 miles to reach homes in the southernmost part of The Acreage. He also insisted there is no evidence Pratt's work can be blamed for a spike in cancer that in 2010 prompted state health officials to designate the community as a pediatric brain cancer cluster. "The theory is unprecedented and unworkable," Mr. Gallagher told U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra of the sweeping request. His comments came on the opening day of what is expected to be a five-day hearing to help Marra decide whether to give class- action status to a lawsuit that claims Pratt's actions destroyed property values in the rural community north of Royal Palm Beach. The stigma of owning property in a community that is home to a cancer cluster caused property values to plummet 25 percent to 40 percent, a real estate agent testified. In opening statements, attorneys representing homeowners said the designation and resulting collapse of home prices -- caused by Pratt's negligence -- affected all Acreage residents. Giving the lawsuit class-action status would save time and money, said Jacksonville attorney Bryan Gowdy, who represents homeowners. Otherwise, thousands of Acreage residents could file individual lawsuits, clogging up the courts for years, he said. West Palm Beach attorney Mara Hatfield, who also represents residents, described the issue differently. "It's about community harm," she told Judge Marra. "You drop something in the water and it ripples out." Not only have property values failed to keep pace with surrounding communities, but many Acreage residents no longer use their well water, fearing it is contaminated, she said. "How on Earth would you remedy this situation without communal relief?" she asked. Hatfield also represents dozens of residents in separate lawsuits who blame Pratt for cancers that destroyed their lives or claimed the lives of loved ones. Those suits will be tried separately. Judge Marra's decision on whether to grant class-action status only impacts the lawsuit that accuses Pratt of destroying property values. Further, he won't decide whether the residents' claims are valid. That will be up to a jury to decide at a later date. However, the proceedings promise to offer a detailed looked at the claims against Pratt as well as its defense. Experts will testify about real-estate values, soil contamination, how toxins get into ground water and whether the Florida Health Department's designation of the cancer cluster was valid. Gallagher suspects it wasn't. "Statisticians say there was not a statistically valid showing of a cancer cluster," he said. "You can appear to have statistically significant results that do not have a causal relationship." After eight months of investigation, state officials in February 2010 designated the area as a pediatric brain-cancer cluster after finding 13 children had been diagnosed with brain or central nervous system cancers from 1993 to 2008. Additionally, three children developed similar cancers from 2005 to 2007 -- more than twice the number expected. Four additional children were diagnosed with brain cancer in 2008 and one in 2009. As is typical with most cancer clusters throughout the nation, no cause was found. Later tests revealed well water that residents depend on was safe to drink. Still, since federal environmental officials once threatened to designate Pratt's 7,000-acre compound as a Superfund site, it quickly became a prime suspect for those searching for answers. Emails Hatfield uncovered show the company has used radioactive materials. Hatfield also claims Pratt didn't properly monitor trucking companies that were hired to haul contaminated soil to a special facility for processing. Instead, she claims, trucks simply dumped it in The Acreage where it was used as fill for home construction. The toxins slowly made their way into the groundwater, she said. Mr. Gallagher blasted what he called "a conspiracy among truckers." Such claims, he said, are baseless. "Truckers all deny it. Documents belie it," he told Judge Marra. He further dismissed her theories of what he called "an imagined super highway" that delivered toxins to Acreage backyards. Traveling at an estimated 20 feet a year, the contaminants couldn't have reached the community, he said. [GN] PRATT & WHITNEY: Expert Disputes Cancer Cluster Hurt Home Values ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Musgrave, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that an analysis that shows property values in The Acreage plummeted when state health officials in February 2010 declared the rural area home to a pediatric brain cancer cluster is flawed, a real estate expert told a federal judge on Jan. 9. Testifying on behalf of Pratt & Whitney, which disputes claims that its jet manufacturing operation contaminated groundwater supplies with carcinogens, real estate appraiser Thomas Jackson debunked an analysis that found property values in the sprawling community fell 25 to 40 percent and have yet to recover. "There's too much diversity," Mr. Jackson testified. "You just can't lump all these properties together. It would be misleading and improper to do that." The hearing, that began on Jan. 8 and was to wrap up Jan. 12, is to help U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra determine whether all 50,000 residents of the 60-square-mile rural community can be potential beneficiaries of what would become a class-action lawsuit. Attorneys representing residents claim Pratt & Whitney should pay homeowners damages for depressing their property values. In addition to contesting its role in the cancer cluster, the defense contractor says the proposed area is too big and parts too far removed from its operation off the Bee Line Highway to be included in a class-action lawsuit. Mr. Jackson, president of a Texas company that specializes in analyzing real estate that may have been contaminated, said there are various reasons property values in The Acreage may not have kept pace with nearby communities such as Jupiter Farms and Palm Beach Country Estates. Like other neighborhoods throughout the nation, home prices dropped when the housing bubble burst beginning in 2006. Further, he said, more homes in The Acreage fell into foreclosure than those in the other two communities. Homes in foreclosure typically sell for a lower price, he said. Further, he said, a review showed the square footage price of homes in The Acreage has recently increased more than those in Jupiter Farms or Palm Beach Country Estates. Attorney Jack Scarola, who represents homeowners, suggested home prices dropped in 2008 when word began circulating about the number of children diagnosed with brain cancer The Acreage. It wasn't until two years later that the Florida Department of Health confirmed that there was a higher incident of pediatric brain and central nervous system cancers than expected. As is typical in other designated cancer clusters nationwide, no cause was found. [GN] REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 9 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division, case no. 4:17-cv- 03918, on behalf of stockholders of Repros Therapeutics Inc. ("Repros" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RPRX) who held Repros securities and have been harmed by Repros and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the tender offer of Company common stock to be purchased by Allergan plc ("Allergan"). Under the terms of the agreement, Repros stockholders are only anticipated to receive $0.67 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Repros. The complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation Statement") provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the 14D-9 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated ("Stifel"), in support of their fairness opinions. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from January 9, 2018. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Click here for more information: www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. [GN] RJ REYNOLDS: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in Graham Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal for two tobacco manufacturers related to legal rulings involving Engle progeny smokers' lawsuits. As a result, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA face a combined $825,000 in judgments to Earl Graham, husband of the late Faye Graham. The manufacturers submitted their petition for writ of certiorari Sept. 15. Reynolds declined to comment on the ruling. A writ typically is submitted when there are conflicting rulings in lower courts, such as state Supreme Courts. At least four justices have to agree to hear a petition to move it forward. Engle progeny lawsuits sprang from a decision in 2006 by the Florida Supreme Court that decertified a $145 billion class- action lawsuit initially filed by Howard Engle. The ruling limits former class members to filing individual lawsuits stating that cigarettes caused their respective illnesses. On May 23, the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Faye Graham, an original member of the Engle class-action lawsuit. Her husband was awarded a $550,000 judgment from Reynolds and $275,000 from Philip Morris, with the jury finding Faye Graham 70 percent at fault for her illness. The appeals court ruled that previous Engle progeny rulings are allowed as evidence in current and future trials. The manufacturers' appeal was based primarily on their request for clarity on whether previous court rulings should be allowed as evidence, as well as whether their due process has been compromised. "While the class put on evidence of myriad purported negligent acts and defects, the jury never identified what act it found negligent or what defect it found, making it impossible to tell what conduct and which cigarettes, over what time frame, it had condemned," the manufacturers argued. If current and future Engle progeny trials can rely on previous rulings, rather than having to produce their own evidence of harm, "defendants are thus barred from contesting the core basis of their own liability," the petition said. "If the Engle jury's findings are deemed to establish that all cigarettes are inherently defective, are claims based on those findings preempted by the many federal statutes that manifested Congress' intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States?" the petition asked. Ed Sweda Jr., a senior attorney with Northeastern University School of Law, said the decision not to hear the appeal "is a big victory for Engle plaintiffs and their attorneys." "This makes litigating these (potential 8,000) Engle progeny cases much easier than if the plaintiff lawyers had to re-prove these issues in each individual case." Mr. Sweda said. There have been about 300 Engle progeny trials over the past 10 years, he said, with about 200 of them resulting in plaintiff verdicts with compensatory and punitive damages typically in the range of $1 million to $5 million. In January 2016, a three-judge appellate-court panel vacated an April 2015 ruling that said Engle plaintiffs must prove that the cigarettes they or relatives smoked were defective in order to receive damages. The judges ruled that allowing previous legal evidence was akin to a ban on cigarettes, an authority granted only to Congress. The majority of the 10 appellate judges for the 11th Circuit said in a 284-page ruling that they disagree with the manufacturers' argument that federal law pre-empts Engle jury findings and that allowing prior trial evidence would violate the due-process clauses in the U.S. Constitution. Philip Morris, Reynolds and Lorillard Inc. agreed in February 2015 to settle nearly all Engle progeny lawsuit cases, estimated at 415, that are either pending or not yet tried in Florida federal courts. Philip Morris and Reynolds each paid $42.5 million to resolve those cases, while Lorillard paid $15 million. [GN] ROYAL BANK: Vange Consulting Files Class Action Over Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Crump, writing for Law360, reports that a consultancy that recruited Royal Bank of Scotland PLC shareholders to join a class action lawsuit against the bank over its 2008 rights issue has sued the investors for a slice of the GBP200 million ($271 million) settlement they won from the lender in 2017. Vange Consulting Ltd. said in court documents seen by Law360 on Jan. 8 that it is owed around GBP1 million in fees from the RBS shareholder action group. SACRAMENTO BASKETBALL: April 12 Case Conference in "Smith" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Sacramento Downtown Arena LLC. The case is styled as Austin Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sacramento Basketball Holdings GP LLC, Sacramento Basketball Holdings LLC, Sacramento Downtown Arena LLC, Sacramento Kings LTD and Does 1 to 100, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00220226-CU- OE-GDS, (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 11, 2017). The case has been assigned to Department 39. On Oct. 10, 2017, the Court entered an Order setting the Case Management Conference - Case Management Program for April 12, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 39 at Gordon D Schaber Courthouse.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T Shimoda, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP 9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Wickham Securities Class Action Settled ----------------------------------------------------------- Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a lawsuit alleging bungled oversight of infamous Brisbane property lender Wickham Securities, which collapsed amid a $27 million fraud, has quietly settled. The settlement ends a three-year lawsuit targeting Sandhurst Trustees, an arm of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, for its oversight of Wickham. Sandhurst has previously denied failing to exercise its duties. It also marks the latest settlement of a class-action entangling corporate Australia, with insurer QBE acceding to a peace deal last month after being sued over a large profit downgrade. Wickham had used investor funds for high-interest loans to developers on projects from Kingaroy to Adelaide. But 300 self-funded retirees had their investments smashed when Wickham, part of convicted fraudster and financial planner Brad Sherwin's operation, collapsed in December 2012 amid a larger Ponzi scheme. Class action lawyers Shine in 2015 had filed a lawsuit with the lead plaintiffs being Graeme and Marion Clarke, whose superannuation fund had $220,000 invested in Wickham. The case alleged a trustee acting properly would have picked up on problems. Court documents show the examples of problems included that Wickham had created a fake document, purporting $10.8 million was in a bank account when in reality only $264,000 was there. Wickham also failed to keep accurate loan records, the statement of claim said. Sandhurst had defended the action and almost two months' worth of hearings had been set aside for later this year. But The Courier-Mail can reveal a court order issued late last month states that "the proceeding has settled" following an agreement reached on December 22. The settlement still needs to Federal Court approval. Bendigo confirmed the settlement but said the agreement's details were confidential. Shine said it could not reach any lawyers and was unable to comment. That court order came less than two weeks after rumours of a settlement, which both sides denied at the time. No (there is not settlement), the matter is still progressing towards hearing in 2018 as planned," a Shine spokeswoman said at the time. The case also comes with litigation funder JustKapital, which had backed the Shine action, this month telling the stockmarket one of its cases was to settle in the Federal Court and JustKapital would book revenue of $3 million. JustKapital declined to specify whether this was the same action. Wickham's chief executive Garth Robertson in 2016 copped a five- year sentence, suspended after 20 months, for defrauding investors and providing false information to Sandhurst. Sherwin, who was Wickham's chairman, was last year sentenced to 10 years in jail for fraud. He was also a financial planner and, including Wickham, almost $60 million was lost when associated companies also failed. Among the agreed statement of facts in his criminal case included that Sherwin had arranged the transfer of client funds to Wickham without their approval. The settlement leaves one large lawsuit outstanding: a class action from Quinn Emanuel lawyers against Bank of Queensland and fund manager DDH, which handled BoQ accounts. It alleges the companies failed to pick up on warning signs about Sherwin-linked fraud. BoQ and DDH are defending the matter. [GN] SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating whether certain officers and directors of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (NYSE: SC) breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders. On December 20, 2016, investors filed an amended securities class action complaint against Santander for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Santander misclassified loans held by the company and applied an incorrect discount rate to the company's troubled debt restructurings, causing it to understate its allowance for credit losses. Because of the company's violations of generally accepted accounting principles, Santander materially overstated its net income, resulting in multiple restatements covering fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and the quarters within those periods. Before the market became aware of these overstatements and while Santander's stock price was artificially inflated, Santander's Chief Executive Officer resigned and cashed out his entire 10% ownership for approximately $928 million. On January 3, 2018, the Honorable Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division denied Santander's motion to dismiss. Santander Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. About Robbins Arroyo LLP Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. [GN] SCANA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over V.C. Summer Project ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that SCANA asked a judge on Jan. 8 to dismiss five class-action lawsuits filed by ratepayers against the Cayce-based utility company over its handling of the failed $9 billion nuclear project at V.C. Summer station. The utility company's attorneys argued the lawsuits should not be decided in circuit court, but in front of the South Carolina Public Service Commission -- the state's utility regulators. "You lack the experience of the PSC," James Becker, an attorney with Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd representing the utility, told Circuit Judge John C. Hayes. "Let it play out in the PSC. Let it play out in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court." The hearing, which was held in Richland County Court, is only the latest dispute to arise in the wake of the $9 billion nuclear cancellation in Fairfield County. The state's utility commission and the state Legislature are also set to deliberate over who should pay for the costly boondoggle. During an hours-long presentation, Mr. Becker repeatedly cited the Base Load Review Act, a 2007 state law that allowed SCANA to charge its 700,000 customers of the now-abandoned nuclear reactors before they were finished. SCANA, he said, "followed the law to the letter." SCANA's former general counsel, Belton Zeigler, helped write the Base Load Review Act more than a decade ago as an attorney for Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd. That utility-friendly law, Mr. Becker argued, mandates that any disputes over the nuclear project be handled in front of the state's seven utility regulators and that any action by the circuit court would be a "frontal assault" on the PSC decisions. It remains unclear whether the state utility commissioners will get a chance to decide whether SCANA or its customers continue to pay for the unfinished reactors near Jenkinsville. Several lawmakers called for the state's current regulators to resign following a Post and Courier investigation that highlighted dozens of utility-funded conference trips that those officials took over the past five years. State lawmakers plan to take the matter into their own hands when they return to Columbia on Jan. 9 for the start of the 2018 legislative session. Many senators and representatives want to strip nearly $37 million a month that SCANA currently collects from its customers for the cancelled project. Lawyers from the state Attorney General's office and a number of law firms representing electric customers disagreed with SCANA's request to dismiss the cases. Bob Cook, the state's Solicitor General, argued the Base Load Review Act was unconstitutional, and said the 2007 law left customers "out in the cold." "I don't believe this statute was enacted in the public interest. I believe it was enacted in the utility's interest," Cook said. "I don't see where the public has benefited for paying and paying and paying for a hole in the ground." Daniel Haltiwanger, an attorney from Richard, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman representing ratepayers, argued SCANA electric customers never got proper notice about the rate increases. The law, he said, ensured the utility commission could only "rubber stamp" SCANA's requests to increase customers monthly bills. Judge Hayes sat quietly for most of the day taking in the arguments. But as the hearing began to wrap up, he asked what should happen if he rules that the Base Load Review Act is unconstitutional. "I don't think there's any question that ratepayers should get their money back," Mr. Haltiwanger answered. The judge did not offer a ruling on Jan. 8 and did not indicate when a decision would be made. [GN] SETJO LLC: Files Answer to "Willis" Suit in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Setjo, LLC. The case is captioned as Miashonae T. Willis, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Setjo, LLC, doing business as: Kia of Bedford, In its own name and, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02446-DCN (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donald C. Nugent. Setjo filed its answer to the Complaint on January 22, 2018. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act. Setjo primarily operates in the automobiles, new and used business/industry within the automotive dealers and gasoline service stations sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Downie, Esq. TITTLE LAW 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza, Ste. 104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (440) 973 9000 Facsimile: (440) 210 4610 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com - and - Allen C. Tittle, Esq. TITTLE LAW 2012 West 25 Street, Ste. 716 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308 1522 Facsimile: (888) 604 9299 E-mail: tittle@tittlelawfirm.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------ Pursuant to an order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi ("MissPERS"), which is the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action styled In re Signet Jewelers Limited Securities Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-06728-JMF (the "Signet Securities Action") against Signet Jewelers Limited ("Signet" or the "Company") (NYSE: SIG) and certain of its current and former senior officers, publishes this notice to clarify that: (1) on January 7, 2017, the case styled Aydin v. Signet Jewelers Limited, et. al., No. 17-cv-09853 (S.D.N.Y.) ("Aydin") was consolidated into the Signet Securities Action, to proceed under the caption In re Signet Jewelers Limited Securities Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-06728-JMF with MissPERS as the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel; and (2) accordingly, any deadline to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff in Aydin has been vacated. This clarification corrects information previously published by the law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on December 15, 2017, which advised that the deadline for investors to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff in Aydin was February 13, 2018 (the "December 15, 2017 Notice"). The statutory deadline for any motions seeking appointment in the consolidated securities class actions on behalf of investors in Signet securities expired on July 5, 2017. MissPERS was appointed as Lead Plaintiff in the Signet Securities Action on July 27, 2017. Pursuant to the Court's order, any Lead Plaintiff motions filed in response to the December 15, 2017 Notice will be untimely and will not be considered by the Court. The Signet Securities Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning: (1) Signet's credit operations, loan portfolio, and financial condition; and (2) an alleged culture of rampant sexual harassment at the Company. As alleged in the operative complaint, the truth about Signet's loan operation and credit portfolio first began to be revealed on November 24, 2015, when the Company reported surprisingly poor financial results due to deterioration in its credit portfolio. The truth about Signet's culture of sexual harassment was first revealed on February 27, 2017, when The Washington Post published an article detailing the previously-undisclosed contents of hundreds of sworn statements attesting to numerous instances of egregious sexual harassment at the Company. These and further disclosures caused the prices of Signet securities to decline significantly, causing substantial investor losses. Additional information concerning the pending Signet securities class actions is available on the Signet Securities Action docket cited above. If you wish to discuss this action, you can contact Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP using the information provided below. CONTACT: John Rizio-Hamilton Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, New York 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1505 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com [GN] SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING: May Face Suit Over TV License Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Carin Smith, writing for fin24tech, reports that South Africa Broadcasting Corp.'s finances are in such bad shape that it may well end up unable to meet its financial obligations and this will have a negative impact on people who have paid their television licence fees in advance, Advocate Paul Hoffman SC, director of Accountability Now, said on Jan. 8. Accountability Now -- a non-profit organisation with Anglican Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as patron -- wants to ensure that the rule of law is enforced by holding governments, parastatals and the private sector to account. Fin24 reported earlier that the SABC informed Parliament it posted a R977m loss after tax for the 2016/17 financial year. Its net loss for the year ending March 2017 more than doubled from R412m in 2016. In an open letter to SABC chair Bongumusa Makhathini, Mr. Hoffman refers to a report on the SABC the auditor general delivered to Parliament last year. The report stated that the SABC's audited financial statements for the financial year ended March 31 2017 records R40.854m "deferred income" (money received for goods or services which have not yet been delivered) in respect of TV licence fees received in advance. In Mr. Hoffman's view, the SABC is financially in such a bad situation that people who have already paid their TV licence fees run the risk of being "negatively impacted". That is why Accountability Now feels those people are entitled to take steps to protect their "investment in the services of the SABC". The organisation regards each person who has paid a TV licence fee in advance as a concurrent creditor of the SABC with regards to the "unexpired portion" of the licence fee. The Companies Act provides for a potential "class action" if it is contravened. Accountability Now regards the "millions of law abiding citizens" who have already paid their TV licence fees in advance as "affected persons" in terms of the act. Hoffman, therefore, informs Makhathini in the open letter that the organisation is "contemplating" a possible class action case against the SABC on behalf of people who have already paid their TV licence fees in advance as the organisation deems this to be in the public interest. "The SABC will continue to be reliant on government guarantees for it to continue as a going concern. That is, the SABC is unable to sustain its operations from its own resources and is entirely reliant on state guaranteed funding," Mr. Hoffman said in the open letter. "It seems the SABC, already illiquid as its board concedes, is additionally likely to become insolvent in the short term. Yet it continues to collect licence fees, annually in advance, thus increasing concurrent liabilities." In Accountability Now's view the SABC has not had "a professional and independent board" for some time and is unlikely to survive in the absence of further state support -- by way of guarantees of otherwise. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Okays $15-Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Stevens, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal judge has approved a $15 million settlement between Southwest Airlines and members of a class-action lawsuit who allege that the company, along with three other airlines, conspired to limit the number of seats available to customers and keep ticket prices high. In a statement, Southwest said the settlement "does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing" and denied having entered into any unlawful agreements with its competitors. The move appeared to represent a break of sorts between Southwest and the other three defendants named in the lawsuit: American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines. Those companies have also denied doing anything illegal, and they continue to fight the allegations. As part of the agreement preliminarily approved on Jan. 3, Southwest agreed to make the $15 million cash payment and also to provide what court documents called "extensive cooperation." Those cooperative efforts, according to the court documents, will include a "full account of facts" relevant to the plaintiffs' case as well as a series of informational meetings and interviews with industry experts and Southwest employees facilitated by the company. "We're entering into this settlement to avoid considerable distraction and expense of protracted class-action litigation," Southwest said in a statement. "For decades, we have consistently set our capacity planning with a goal of offering our lowest fares." The company did not immediately respond to specific questions about why it decided to provide information to the plaintiffs and whether that information would damage the other defendants. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that a conspiracy began in 2009. They argue that since then, the cost of airfare with Southwest, American, Delta, and United -- which they say collectively controls about 80 percent of domestic passenger seats -- "rose substantially compared to those of other domestic air carriers, despite stagnant or decreasing demand and declines in the cost of jet fuel." The plaintiffs say airline officials repeatedly assured one another on earnings calls and at conferences that exercising "capacity discipline" was good for the industry. And as a result, the lawsuit said, "Passengers have been injured by paying higher airfares and facing reduced flight choices." "The conduct at issue constitutes a violation of federal antitrust laws," it continued. A spokesman for American Airlines said on Jan. 5 that Southwest's settlement had not changed its position. "We will continue to defend against the claims which we believe are without merit," the spokesman, Matt Miller, said. United issued a statement that echoed those sentiments almost verbatim. Delta said it had not engaged in any illegal behavior, adding, "The assertion that our success is due to anything more than the hard work of our people is not only ridiculous, it is offensive." None of the airlines answered specific questions about whether Southwest's pledge of "extensive cooperation" merited their concern. Citing media reports, court documents say that the Justice Department began investigating "possible unlawful coordination" between airlines in 2015. About a week before President Trump took office last January, The Wall Street Journal reported that despite a lengthy inquiry, Obama-era Justice Department officials had not found enough evidence to bring an antitrust case against the airline industry. The Journal reported at the time that the case had not been formally closed, but that the odds of one materializing were minimal. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Jan. 5. [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: Court Tosses Latte Under-filling Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Corinne Purtill, writing for Quartz, reports that a US federal court has thrown out a class action lawsuit against Starbucks that alleged that the beverage chain was cheating customers by under-filling drinks and overdoing it with the foam. Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles of California filed a class action suit against the chain in 2016 "on behalf of purchasers of Starbucks Caffe Lattes, Flavored Lattes, Pumpkin Spice Lattes, Egg Nog Lattes, Skinny Lattes, Skinny Flavored Lattes, Vanilla Lattes, and Skinny Vanilla Lattes (collectively, 'Lattes')," according to the legal filing. The plaintiffs charged that Starbucks systematically cheated this collective of latte purchasers over the years, with drinks missing as much as 25% of their advertised volume. It was, the plaintiffs alleged, part of a scheme to save money on milk, one of the chain's most expensive ingredients. The plaintiffs "would not have purchased Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if the true facts were known concerning the Lattes' quantity," the complaint stated. "At an absolute minimum, Defendant negligently misrepresented and/or negligently omitted material facts about Starbucks Lattes." Starbucks countered that milk expands when it steams, and that their drink volumes meet advertised sizes. The judge agreed. This is not the first court to strike down a motion against Starbucks sizing. In 2016, a California court dismissed a lawsuit charging Starbucks with fraud and false advertising over the actual sizes of its iced beverages, a claim that addressed both the physics of freezing water and the ice-to-liquid ratio in a Grande Shaken Iced Peach Green Tea Lemonade. [GN] SYNERGY GLOBAL: Failed to Pay "Hollender" Overtime, Commissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Hollender and Michael Quiles, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Synergy Global Forum Inc., Alexander Makarov and Oxdelle Joseph, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 10172 (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2017), seeks to recover wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Synergy Global is in the business of creating and operating business events around the world. During their employment with Synergy, Plaintiffs worked 6 days per week without overtime pay. Defendants also failed to pay Defendants their final payment including salary and commissions earned from November 16 to December 5, 2017, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Action Not Certified ---------------------------------------------------- Torstar News Service reports that James Pickersgill would be the first to tell you he's not a master of social media. And he wouldn't exactly call himself an activist, even though he played a determined role in getting the pretty town of Cobourg, Ont., to change its bylaws to allow for boulevard gardens. Mostly he's a "doing good things to help people" kind of guy, from co-ordinating volunteers to help at a local hospice, to chairing the committee charged with defining the terms of reference for the town's poet laureate. In this latter role, Mr. Pickersgill found himself promoting the power of poetry by roaming the streets one Valentine's Day, reading love poems to passersby. "We were wandering poets," he says in fond remembrance, adding that poems had been sent from all over the world, printed up on red paper and taped to local shop windows. So on the day when he heard that "this awful thing happened" in the community he loves, Mr. Pickersgill decided to do something about it. The "awful thing" was the news that filtered through kids' friends and family friends of a notification to staff at the local Tim Hortons that Mr. Pickersgill frequents. Owing to the province's increase in minimum wage to $14 an hour as of Jan. 1, and the further $1-an-hour increase to follow, staff was informed that workday breaks would no longer be paid. Thus a nine-hour shift would draw eight hours and 20 minutes of pay. Certain benefits costs would shift to employees. Certain incentives were cancelled. "I was furious," Mr. Pickersgill says. "I felt betrayed as a Tim Hortons customer. These people have bought into the community's goodwill by saying 'We're significant in the life of the community.' " By "these people" he means Ron Joyce Jr., son of Tim Hortons cofounder Ron Joyce, and Jeri-Lynn Horton-Joyce, daughter of Tim Horton, who was playing for the Toronto Maple Leafs when he opened the first doughnut shop in 1964. Ron Joyce Jr. Enterprises Ltd. is the Cobourg franchisee, noted for its Tim Horton hockey paraphernalia. "A real small-town sort of hub," Mr. Pickersgill calls the coffee shop where he orders his double cream, no sugar. (According to an unrelated court filing, Ron Joyce Jr. Enterprises Ltd. operates three Tim Hortons franchises. Two are in Cobourg.) So Mr. Pickersgill posted an image of the letter, which employees were asked to sign, on his Facebook page. "The image I had of the letter looked amateurish," he says. "But I was told they weren't allowed to take it out of the building." So what was posted was a cellphone snap. "As soon as I posted it, it took off," he says, adding he sees himself as a Luddite. "It's not only what they did, it's the way they did it. Did they not see that this would be a public relations disaster?" Mr. Pickersgill is a machine operator, nearing retirement, with a good-paying job in a unionized shop, the kind of job that's harder and harder to come by. He was coming off the night shift when he caught wind of Premier Kathleen Wynne's response to the growing firestorm. Ms. Wynne didn't sugar-coat her views in an interview with CBC News. "To be blunt," Ms. Wynne said, "I think it's the act of a bully. And if Mr. Joyce Jr. wants to pick a fight, pick that fight with me and not the people who are working at the service window of the stores." Mr. Pickersgill's response? "Incredible. Good for her. I'm so happy she did that." Predictably, the story grew and grew. More than one Cobourg resident has stopped Mr. Pickersgill with a "Hey, you're famous" comment. In this talk-of-the-town way, the coffee shop where James Pickersgill and his wife would wait out their daughter's Girl Guide hours "renewing our relationship" (Pickersgill has a lovely sense of humour) has become a metaphor for the fight for a living wage and the deterioration of the brand resonance that accompanied the Tim Hortons banner. As evidence I cite the "Way Forward Bus Tour" agenda I have inexplicably held on to, five years after Kathleen Wynne traversed the province on a cold, snowy January weekend as she campaigned for the Liberal leadership. The Saturday morning stop at the Timmie's on Bridgeport Road East in Waterloo was soon followed by a scheduled half-hour at the Timmie's on Erie Street in Stratford and, subsequently, the Tim's on Commissioners Road East, London. By mid-afternoon she was meeting the nice folks in Exeter, at the Timmie's at the confluence of Highway 4 and Highway 23. And then it was on to the Tim Hortons on Josephine Street in Wingham. Sunday campaign stops included a Tim's in Barrie, another in Lindsay and, finally, Whitby. The optics offered the obviously right political notes, the Tim's outlets positioning Wynne as a candidate attentive to the concerns of Main Street, Main Street being the proud heritage of the doughnut chain and its vaunted people-focused corporate culture. (Customers are not customers, they are Guests; minimum wage employees are Team Members.) But by Christmastime, 2014, all this had changed. It is here that we must put the community focus on hold, and turn, in a take-your-medicine way, to the corporate side of the tale. For in December of that year, a private equity firm that, safe to say, few in Cobourg would be familiar with, finalized its takeover of Tim Hortons. The name 3G Capital still draws stares of nonrecognition, but the Brazilian-based private equity firm came on like gangbusters with its 2010 leveraged buyout of Burger King, followed by its takeover of H.J. Heinz with the backing of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. That second deal, Ontarians may recall, resulted in Heinz exiting the ketchup operation it had run in Leamington for more than 100 years. The $12.5-billion takeover of Tim Hortons was finalized in 2014, which explains how Tim Hortons is now in a continent-wide corporate mash-up with Burger King and the latterly acquired Popeyes chicken chain in the publicly traded Restaurant Brands International with 3G, which carries with it a reputation for swift corporate executions, as majority shareholder. Happiness has not prevailed. Ten months ago, a group of Tim Hortons franchisees banded together to form the Great White North Franchisee Association. The association's list of complaints include cost-cutting measures that they say have resulted in lower quality, a lack of transparency and new costs downloaded to the so-called Ad Fund that is used to promote and preserve the Tim Hortons brand. The group claims a membership of 50 per cent of the franchised outlets in Canada. A proposed class-action lawsuit was launched in June and has not been certified. In other words, even before the latest meltdown, Tim Hortons was a brand in crisis. The letter to employees not only cited the increase to the provincial minimum wage as a rationale for the salary and benefits cutbacks, but a "lack of assistance and financial help from our Head Office and the Government." By Jan. 5, Head Office was in full damage control mode, blaming the actions of "a reckless few" restaurant owners for a story that, appropriately, has snowballed nationally. "Team Members should never be used to further an agenda or be treated as just an 'expense,' " went the release from HQ. Back in Cobourg, James Pickersgill has a few days off. In a state of wonder, no doubt. It is precisely perfect that the needed wage hike has caused a cataclysm in small-town Ontario and in, no less, the very heart of double-double Canadianness. "If people are wrong, you fight them," he says simply. The question is, will the Joyces reverse their decision? "I don't know that they're brave enough to do that." [GN] TIME INC: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ WeissLaw LLP on Jan. 8 disclosed that a class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders of Time, Inc. ("Time") (NYSE: TIME) seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed acquisition of Time by Meredith Corporation ("Meredith") (NYSE: MDP). On November 26, 2017, Time and Meredith announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Meredith will acquire all outstanding shares of Time in a cash transaction valued at approximately $2.8 billion ("Proposed Transaction"). Under the terms of the agreement, Time shareholders will receive $18.50 in cash for each share held. The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all Time shareholders. The plaintiff is represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the defendants filed a materially false and/or misleading Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to Time shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty (60) days from January 8, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e- mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary duties. [GN] TOWN SPORTS: "Santos" Suit Goes Back to New Jersey State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jiatz Santos, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Town Sports International, Inc. doing business as New York Sports Clubs, the Defendant, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, Case No. BER-L-5245-17, on October 6, 2017, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv- 07989-SDW-SCM (D.N.J.). The case was assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton for all further proceedings. Then, on November 28, 2017, Judge Wigenton entered an Order granting Santos' motion to remand the case.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Bell, Esq. James A. Barry, Esq. Michael A. Galpern, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 663-8200 Facsimile: (856) 823-1551 Facsimile: (856) 661-8400 Email: abell@lockslaw.com Email: jbarry@lockslaw.com Email: mgalpern@lockslaw.com Defendant is represented by: Peter George Siachos, Esq. GORDON & REES, LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike Suite 220 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-2532 Facsimile: (973) 377-1911 Email: psiachos@grsm.com TUESDAY MORNING: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jerry Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02200 (M.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Tuesday Morning -- https://www.tuesdaymorning.com/ -- is a standardized, centrally driven, multi-channel, low expense national retail chain specializing in both domestic and international closeouts of medium to high end name brand gifts, soft home, home furnishings, housewares, luggage, toys, seasonal items, gourmet food and fashion accessories for men, women and children. Castillo worked as a Store Manager for their Orange County Store. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Lytle, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. Robert N. Sutton, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A. 543 N. Wymore Road, Ste. 103 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-6544 Facsimile: (407) 622-6545 Email: mlflle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney rsutton@lblaw.attorney UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Driver Service Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Lomas, writing for Techcrunch, reports that Uber has agreed to pay $3M to settle a proposed class action lawsuit brought by 2,421 drivers in New York who had accused the ride- sharing giant of docking excessive fees from their fares. The preliminary settlement was filed with on Jan. 8 with the federal court in Brooklyn, according to Reuters. The original suit was filed in the court in January 2016, and covers Uber drivers who have used the Uber app to arrange rides in New York since December 29, 2009. The drivers had accused Uber of breach of contract by including NY state sales tax and a state workers compensation fund surcharge, called the "Black Car Fund" fee, when it calculated their service fees -- thereby increasing how much they were being charged. The drivers also accused Uber of false advertising by offering guaranteed compensation without disclosing the conditions. According to Reuters, Uber denied all allegations, and settled without admitting wrongdoing to avoid the cost and inconvenience of litigation. At the time of writing the company had not responded to a request for comment on the settlement. This is just the latest outlay for Uber insofar as driver-related complaints are concerned. In January 2017 Uber agreed to pay $20M to settle an FTC complaint that it mislead drivers about earning potential and vehicle financing. While, last May, it agreed to pay more than $80M to ~96,000 drivers in New York, after it admitted having inadvertently underpaid them for two-and-a-half years. Over in the UK, Uber also recently lost an appeal against an employment tribunal ruling that found a group of drovers to be workers not self-employed contractors -- raising the prospect of it having to shell out tens of millions of pounds in its most lucrative European market if it ends up having to fund workers rights benefits for all its UK drivers. On the job classification front, Uber struck a $100M class action settlement with 385,000 US drivers in April 2016 -- getting them to agree to remain classed as independent contractors in exchange for providing them with some concessions, such as not penalizing drivers who decline trips when logged into the app, as well as handing over a chunk of cash. In June 2016 Uber also paid $7.5M to settle a lawsuit brought by drivers over background checks. That suit had alleged that Uber terminated drivers from its platform after obtaining their consumer background reports without authorization. [GN] UNITED STATES: ACLU Plans to Support Pro-Abortion Candidates ------------------------------------------------------------ Micaiah Bilger, writing for Life News, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union, often a partner with the abortion industry in lawsuits, plans to spend a huge amount to support pro-abortion candidates in the 2018 midterm elections. Politico reports the liberal non-profit has at least $25 million slated to promote abortion and other liberal issues in the upcoming elections. The ACLU does not have a political action committee, so it cannot directly support or endorse candidates; it can, however, support issues, according to the Christian Post. The pro-abortion legal group said it will release an election scorecard with candidates' positions, statements and votes on various issues. It also plans to run advertisements, town hall meetings and phone banks leading up to the midterm elections, according to the report. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told Politico that they hope to further engage voters in the increasingly divisive political climate. "It's clear that a larger portion of the American public is deeply engaged in politics in a way they've never been before," Romero said. Here's more from the report: Soaring after a banner year -- the ACLU raised $93 million online in the 12 months after Donald Trump was elected president, up from $5.5 million the year before, and its membership quadrupled to 1.6 million -- the civil rights group is in the midst of a dramatic makeover. The group aims to rival the National Rifle Association as a force on the left and become a hub of the anti- Trump movement. . . . Most of the ACLU's spending in 2018 will be directed at Republicans, though operatives haven't ruled out indirectly going after Democrats on the wrong side of their issues, too. It will not form a PAC or endorse candidates, moves that would mean losing its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, instead limiting its activity to promoting issues and initiatives. Among them are voting rights, the travel ban, disability rights, reproductive rights and immigration. The ACLU is a multi-issue group, but abortion is one of its key focuses. It often partners with Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses to challenge pro-life laws and regulations. Currently, the group is challenging the Trump administration's new life-affirming policies for unaccompanied immigrant minors and refugees. Late last year, the ACLU forced the administration to help facilitate an abortion for an illegal immigrant minor. A few weeks later, the pro-abortion legal group filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to force it to facilitate abortions for the young girls in its care. It also fought to deny federal grants to Catholic charities that help immigrants and refugees. The ACLU argues that the government should not give money to Catholic aid programs because they do not refer or provide abortions or birth control to young, unaccompanied minor refugees and immigrants, the New York Times reported. In the lawsuit, it argues that the agencies are legally required to provide access to contraception and abortion because they receive government funding. The ACLU and Hawaiian abortion activists also are suing the federal government in a case that could force every pharmacy in America to sell dangerous abortion drugs. The goals of the ACLU are clear. It states on its website that it "works every day to stop . . . attack[s] on reproductive freedom," or legalized abortion on demand. [GN] VU FOOD SERVICES: "Carrion" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Valeria Carrion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VU Food Services, Inc. and Vince Vu, in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 62575 (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, post-judgment interest and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. VU Food Services, Inc. operates as Basilic Vietnamese Grill located at 218 East Commercial Boulevard, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, FL 33308 where Carrion was hired by Defendants as a waitress. She claims that 3.5% of her sales were removed from her credit card tips. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn L. Birken, Esq. SHAWN L. BIRKEN, P.A. 100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Tel: (954) 990-4343 Fax: (954) 990-4469 E-Mail: sbirken@randb-law.com acabello@randb-law.com W AVIATION: Dean Seeks to Send Notice to Service Technicians ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW DEAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. W. AVIATION, LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-62282-BB (S.D. Fla.), asks the entry of an order permitting, under Court supervision, notice to this class of similarly situated employees: "All hourly paid "Line Service Technicians" of Defendant, W. AVIATION, LLC, at any time during the last three (3) years, who were not paid full and proper overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) in one or more workweeks." Mr. Dean alleges that the Defendant, through its manager Pak Cheung, knowingly deleted, modified, and reduced the actual hours recorded on the Plaintiff's and the similarly situated class members' time cards, to avoid having to pay them time and one half as the Fair Labor Standards Act requires. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZcJS1zsC The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. Richard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com WALMART CORP: Shoppers Sue Over Shell Egg False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Walmart and one of its California egg suppliers, Cal-Maine Foods, are facing a class-action lawsuit alleging the two parties lied to consumers about the treatment and condition of hens laying Walmart store-brand Organic Marketside eggs, according to Hagens Berman. Consumers paid high prices for what they were told were eggs laid by hens "free to roam, nest and perch in a protected barn with outdoor access." However, according to the lawsuit, Walmart and Cal-Maine knew the hens were in fact confined inside industrial barns with enclosed porches, never able to touch the soil or vegetation surrounding the barns. Cal-Maine is the largest producer of shell eggs in the U.S., and Walmart the largest retailer in the world. Walmart's Marketside brand eggs sell for $2.98, whereas its Organic Marketside eggs laid by hens with "outdoor access" sell for $3.97 -- a third more. The suit filed Jan. 8, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks reimbursement for consumers who paid high prices for Walmart's Organic Marketside store-brand eggs, which were sold as being laid by hens with outdoor access. The suit also seeks an injunction from the court to force Walmart and Cal-Maine to end their deceptive marketing of Organic Marketside eggs. "Walmart is the largest and most profitable retailer in the world, and it chose to knowingly scam those trying to do good with their purchasing power," said Elaine Byszewski -- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- a partner of Hagens Berman. "We believe Walmart and Cal-Maine knew that despite the promise of 'outdoor access' on the cartons of eggs they sold, the hens that laid their store-brand eggs were confined inside industrial barns." Attorneys' investigations of a Cal-Maine egg farm revealed that less than 1 percent of the flock located at the massive Chase, Kansas egg farm were able to even look outside. The location has the capacity to house 400,000 hens. "Our investigators have seen these facilities first-hand," Ms. Byszewski said. "Had consumers known the truth about what 'outdoor access' meant -- stuck inside with no access to nearby pasture -- they either would not have purchased them or would have paid less." "Surely this isn't what consumers have in mind when they read 'farm fresh,' 'free to roam,' and 'outdoor access,'" she added. Rather, studies show that consumers believe "outdoor access" means a majority of animals at any given time have access to open pasture and vegetation throughout the day. The class action adds that the majority of consumers (77 percent) have stated they are concerned about the welfare of animals raised for food, including laying hens. In addition, "more than two-thirds (69 percent) of consumers pay some or a lot of attention to food labels regarding how the animal was raised." The suit says Walmart and Cal-Maine knew this, and exploited consumers' concerns. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Walmart. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with 11 offices across the country. [GN] WV AMERICAN: Feb. 1 Water Crisis Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that four years to the day after the Freedom Industries chemical spill, a landmark $151 million class-action settlement over the regional water crisis that followed the spill moved one step closer to final court approval during a hearing on Jan. 9 in Charleston. U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver said that, before granting that final approval, he wants to see updated numbers on how many claims have been filed and also receive a report from a court- appointed guardian whose role is to protect the interests of children who have claims to part of the settlement with West Virginia American Water Co. and Eastman Chemical Co. The judge scheduled a hearing for Feb. 1 to consider that information. The settlement seems almost certain to receive final approval, having prompted no formal objections from hundreds of thousands of residents, businesses and wage earners who are members of the class covered by the deal. "It is extraordinary that there have been essentially no objections to the settlement." Judge Copenhaver said. "It is remarkable that there is such unanimity." Stuart Calwell, an attorney for the residents and businesses, said it is "astonishing" that there were no objections filed. He noted that only 76 potential class members had filed forms to "opt out" of the settlement. A court filing from the settlement administrator indicated that there have been more than 50,000 residential and nearly 2,000 business claims for compensation filed as of Dec. 29. The settlement administrator indicated that, so far, about 43 percent of eligible residential households have filed claims, a figure attorneys in the case said far exceeds the standard response in similar class-action settlements. Lawyers in the case have carried out an aggressive public-notice program and are planning additional efforts to encourage members of the class to file their claims. Under the settlement, residential households -- homeowners as well as renters -- may file a simple claim form and obtain $550 for the first resident and $180 for each additional resident. Residents also may file more-detailed information about their losses -- for things such as bottled water or replacement appliances -- if they provide proof of those expenditures on a separate type of claim form. Businesses and nonprofit organizations may likewise obtain flat payments, based on their size, or can submit documentation of specific losses to have those recouped. The settlement also provides additional payments to women who were pregnant at the time of the chemical spill that sparked the water crisis, residents who had medical expenses and hourly-wage earners who lost money when businesses they worked in closed during the crisis. Government agencies also are eligible to submit claims. The deadline for filing claims is Feb. 21, and distribution of claims money won't start until after that. More information can be found and claims may be filed at www.wvwaterclaims.com. More information also is available by calling 1-855-829-8121 or reading the "Frequently Asked Questions" list on the website. Residents, businesses and others don't have to have previously hired a lawyer or signed up for a lawsuit to be eligible, but they do have to file claims. Anyone who falls within the definition of the "class" covered by the settlement may file a claim for compensation. The class includes basically any business or resident who received tap water from the Elk River intake plant and any hourly-wage earner whose employer closed because of the spill and resulting water system contamination. In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses had alleged that West Virginia American did not adequately prepare for or respond to the Jan. 9, 2014, spill just upstream from the company's Elk River regional drinking water intake, and that MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn Freedom of the dangers of its chemical or take any action when Eastman officials learned that the Freedom facility was in disrepair. West Virginia American and Eastman deny any liability. They say the blame for the crisis rests with Freedom Industries, which admitted to criminal pollution violations related to the spill. Kevin Thompson, another attorney for the residents and businesses, said that, along with the settlement, steps taken as a result of Freedom's bankruptcy case and a Public Service Commission investigation pressed by local citizens and consumer advocates had put in place reforms making it less likely a similar water crisis could occur again. "I think it's highly unlikely that a chemical contamination such as this coming down the river will threaten the city again," Mr. Thompson told Judge Copenhaver. A case that is not part of the settlement, brought against the water company and Eastman by the West Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, appears likely to also settle. Negotiations are ongoing and Eastman attorney Marc Williams told Judge Copenhaver he is "confident" that an agreement can be reached. Two Charleston restaurants, The Chop House and Tidewater, Grill had been part of that case but recently informed Judge Copenhaver that they want to withdraw their "opt-out" notices so they may join in the larger settlement arrangement. [GN] * AARP Wants Tech Cos to End Age Bias on Facebook Recruitment Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, writing for ProPublica, reports that the largest advocacy group for older Americans and the two top members of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging are calling on employers and tech companies to stop limiting recruitment ads on Facebook and other online sites to younger workers. "It appears age discrimination is alive and well in the digital era," Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of AARP, said in a statement on Jan. 5. "We urge online platforms to take the steps needed to ensure they're not supporting age-biased recruiting and hiring practices. And we continue to call on all employers to end bias in their employment practices," she said. Maine Republican Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Aging Committee, and Pennsylvania Democrat Robert Casey, the ranking minority member, wrote to Facebook, Google and LinkedIn on Dec. 22, asking them how many employment ads on their platforms are targeted by age group, and what safeguards they have to prevent employment discrimination based on age. The companies have until the end of January to respond. "By targeting employment advertisements to specific age groups, certain users may be denied the ability to view job opportunities," Ms. Collins and Mr. Casey wrote. "While targeted online job postings can benefit both employers and workers, this technological advancement can also become an avenue for discriminatory practices if not properly managed." AARP and the senators were reacting to a Dec. 20 report by ProPublica and The New York Times that dozens of the nation's leading employers, including Facebook itself, narrow their audience for job ads on Facebook and other platforms by age. The ability of advertisers to direct their messages at specific groups is a cornerstone of Facebook's business. But such micro- targeting becomes controversial when it fosters discrimination in legally protected categories such as race and age. ProPublica has reported that Facebook also accepted ads aimed at "Jew- haters" as well as housing ads that discriminated by race, gender, disability and other factors. On the same day that the employment-ad article was published, a class-action complaint alleging age discrimination was filed in federal court in San Francisco against major employers for denying job opportunities to older workers by preventing them from receiving recruiting ads on Facebook. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Communications Workers of America and its members, as well as all Facebook users 40 or older. ProPublica found that Google and LinkedIn also allowed the purchase of employment ads targeted by age. After being contacted by ProPublica, LinkedIn changed its ad-buying portal to prevent advertisers from using age ranges unless they affirm the ad is not discriminatory. Google and Facebook acknowledged that they allow advertisers to display ads based on the user's age, and defended the practice. "Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said Rob Goldman, a Facebook vice president. A Facebook spokesman said the company is in touch with the AARP and the Senate Aging Committee. The AARP, which has more than 35 million members, and the senators also said the widespread targeting of ads to younger workers online shows the need to update the 1967 law that prohibits bias against people 40 or older in hiring or employment. "Technological advancements require new attention," Ms. LeaMond said. "The methods of discrimination have changed and its tools now include algorithms, dropdown boxes and pattern recognition." Mr. Casey has proposed legislation to strengthen the age discrimination law by making it equivalent to statutory protections based on race and gender. He said the issue of age targeting in online employment ads is new to him. "We still have to learn a lot more," he said in an interview. "One of the problems is the awareness of the law and the intensity with regard to how employers approach compliance on age discrimination is at a very low level" compared with other forms of bias. Other groups besides AARP also expressed concern in response to the article. "This kind of discriminatory redlining is just the tip of the iceberg, and it must stop," Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that seeks to strengthen protections for workers, said in a Dec. 21 statement. "To hear that certain employers might not make job ads visible to those people, it's disheartening," Maura Porcelli, managing director of the Senior Community Service Employment Program at the National Council on Aging, said in an interview. "The data shows that older adults are valuable members of the workplace, with expertise and very low turnover. But clearly some employers have still not embraced that value." [GN] * Class Action Rulings Impact Farm, Ranch Businesses ---------------------------------------------------- American Farm Bureau Federation on Jan. 7 disclosed that court decisions and changes in the law can have significant impacts on farm and ranch businesses, according to two agricultural law experts who presented at a workshop at the American Farm Bureau Federation's 2018 Annual Convention & IDEAg Trade Show. Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, assistant professor and Extension specialist in agricultural law with Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, and Paul Goeringer, Extension legal specialist at the University of Maryland, gave an overview of legal issues affecting farmers and ranchers, including the Waters of the U.S. rule, dicamba drift, a tentative settlement in the Syngenta corn class action lawsuits and "ag gag" laws. WOTUS "Congress gave the EPA jurisdiction over 'Waters of the U.S.,' but didn't define Waters of the U.S.," said Ms. Lashmet. This left the definition up to the agency, but rather than interpreting the scope of the regulation, EPA expanded it with the 2015 WOTUS rule. Numerous lawsuits were filed, and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the rule in 2015. Farmers could be required to get a permit for a farm pond, with permit costs ranging from $30,000 for a "simple" permit up to $280,000 for a complex one, and with daily fines of $37,500 for non-compliance. In 2016 the Supreme Court heard a challenge, and a ruling is expected sometime in summer 2018. "No group is more familiar with WOTUS than the American Farm Bureau," said Ms. Lashmet. Dicamba Drift Mr. Goeringer said new EPA regulations will force new labeling requirements for dicamba use. Only permitted, certified applicators who received dicamba-specific training can apply the product, and operators cannot spray if wind is higher than 10 miles per hour. There are new record-keeping requirements and more specific tank cleanout requirements. Dicamba can only be sprayed during daylight hours, and farmers must do additional checks for sensitive crops before spraying. Other labeling requirements from 2017 will still apply, and new state laws and regulations have been adopted in several states. Tentative Syngenta Settlement In 2013, corn shipments were rejected at a Chinese port due to the presence of Viptera, and lawsuits were filed across the country by shippers and grain handlers, as well as farmers who did not plant the seed. Many suits were consolidated in Kansas, where a jury awarded $217 million to farmers. The court also certified nine initial class-action lawsuits in several states. Unconfirmed reports say a settlement could be $1.5 billion, but any payout will take considerable time to be decided. The message to farmers, said Lashmet, is to "pay attention to your mailbox for a mailing about opting in or out, or a notice of settlement." "Ag Gag" Laws Farm protection laws, unfairly described as "ag gag" laws by opposition groups, have been passed in Idaho, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and North Carolina. These laws make it a crime to trespass on or video ag operations or to seek employment with intent to video ag operations. The court affirmed some of these provisions and struck down others. Other Legal Issues Mr. Goeringer and Ms. Lashmet also gave brief updates on federal reserved water rights on insurance protection exclusions for manure, and urged farmers and ranchers to be informed about legal issues that could impact their businesses. "Being involved in Farm Bureau is the best way to stay up to date on the regulations and laws that affect you," said Ms. Lashmet. [GN] * Consumer Protection Bill Includes Grounds for Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Bureaucracy Today reports that laying the ground for a Central Consumer Protection Authority, the Consumer Protection Bill 2018 seeks a complete overhaul in the consumer rights replacing the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The highlights of the bill include grounds for class-action suits, treatment of complaints regarding a faulty product or service as representative, clear specifics regarding what constitutes false and unfulfilled claims, providing up to two to five years' jail term, Rs.10 lakh fine, and one year ban from making endorsements for defaulters and up to Rs. 50 lakh fine for repeat offenders. Highlighting the obvious vulnerability, the bill states, "The modern market place contains a plethora of products and services. The emergence of global supply chains, rise in international trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new delivery systems for goods and services and have provided new options and opportunities for consumers. Equally, this has rendered the consumer vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and unethical business practices". Pradeep Mehta, CUTS International, said, "In an earlier era, issues like misleading ads and cheating were dealt with under the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act. But since the Competition Act, 2002, replaced the MRTP Act, it left out effective regulations to deal with unfair trade practices. This new bill hopefully will address these shortcomings". * Issue on Whether ICOs Implicate Securities Laws Up for Debate --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that federal and state regulators aren't the only ones taking a closer look at initial coin offerings: so is the plaintiffs' bar. In the last month alone, class actions have targeted five ICOs, alleging they were unlawful sales of unregistered securities, and securities lawyers say more are sure to follow. "The possibility of these types of lawsuits shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in the industry at this point. The SEC has been very vocal recently that it will deem most tokens or coins issued through ICOs to be securities under U.S. law," Benjamin J.A. Sauter -- benjamin.sauter@kobrekim.com -- a securities litigator at Kobre & Kim LLP told Bloomberg Law. "Companies selling new tokens or coins through ICOs to U.S. investors are taking a calculated risk." No federal court has addressed whether ICOs implicate securities laws and the question is still up for debate, Joshua Ashley Klayman -- jklayman@mofo.com -- of counsel at Morrison Foerster LLP, told Bloomberg Law. "Many people bringing suits may just assume that all tokens are securities, but you actually have to do an analysis on the particular token and token sale itself," said Mr. Klayman, referring to the Howey test, which says a security exists where there's a monetary investment in a common enterprise with most profits coming from others' efforts. Mr. Klayman, cofounder of the firm's Blockchain + Smart Contracts Group and chair of the Wall Street Blockchain Alliance Legal Working Group, cautioned against "jumping to conclusions" about which ICOs are sales of securities before courts have had a chance to weigh in. Early Test An early test of how the courts will treat class actions targeting ICOs has already begun playing out in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Michael Dicke and Eric Young of Fenwick West LLP noted in a Jan. 3 client alert. That's where U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg is considering a consolidated series of class actions against Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., the owner of Tezos, which is alleged to have violated state and federal securities laws by marketing the sale of proposed tokens as charitable contributions. Judge Seeborg Dec. 20 denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and asset freeze. Judge Seeborg has presided over 56 securities cases and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed his securities decisions in two out of three appeals, according to Bloomberg Law's Litigation Analytics. The next day, investors filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against ATBCOIN LLC, an ICO that raised over $20 million and billed itself as "the fastest blockchain-based cryptographic network in the Milky Way galaxy." Other investors filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Centra Tech, Inc., an ICO that raised $30 million and attracted an endorsement from boxer Floyd Mayweather. Silver Miller --DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com -- a four-attorney law firm behind the first of the Tezos suits, which markets itself as "the leading cryptocurrency investor law firm in the country," filed class actions in late December in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against two other proposed ICOs promoted by Monkey Capital and Giga Watt, respectively. "2018 will be the year of ICO litigation," David Silver, partner at Silver Miller, who previously practiced law at Patton Boggs for six years, told Bloomberg Law. Are ICOs Securities? To Mr. Silver, the question of whether ICOs qualify as securities is clear-cut. "I have yet to see an ICO that did not fit the definition of the sale of a security," Mr. Silver said. Securities lawyers say the legal analysis of whether any individual ICO is a security is actually more complicated. Much will depend on how any individual ICO is structured and how companies use the proceeds, Mr. Klayman said. Some companies focus on getting purchasers to use the companies' cryptocurrencies within their own ecosystems, Mr. Klayman said. Other companies might use ICOs as a way to raise capital without giving up company control as they would in a stock offering, she said, and encourage buyers to invest in order to sell later rather than simply to use the underlying product. "When you do things like that as a token seller, you make your tokens look more like securities," she said. This ambiguity can make things difficult even for those who want to follow the law. Most people want their ICOs to comply, Klayman said. "Many people are trying to do it right, but because there hasn't been any bright line guidance, it's tough," she added. SEC and State Regulatory Action The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought three enforcement actions concerning ICOs since the agency's July 2017 investigative report into tokens from the DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization. The report, a first-of-its-kind SEC analysis of an ICO, found the DAO's tokens were securities and subject to applicable U.S. laws, but didn't file charges in the matter. The agency then brought a lawsuit in September 2017 against a man and his two companies for allegedly defrauding investors in a scheme involving ICOs supposedly backed by investments in real estate and diamonds. The commission in December also secured an emergency asset freeze to halt an ICO that allegedly promised investors a 13-fold profit in less than a month. The SEC later that month followed that case by reaching a settlement with the maker of a restaurant-review app to stop its ICO after the agency questioned whether the company was planning an unregistered securities offering. State regulators are also showing interest in ICOs. he Texas State Securities Board filed an emergency cease-and-desist-order against U.K.-based BitConnect. The Jan. 4 order came the same day multiple state securities regulators advised the public to "go beyond the headlines and hype" of cryptocurrencies and fully understand the potential risks. No matter its merits, the risk of litigation could nevertheless have a chilling effect on ICOs, Brian Knight, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center specializing in financial regulation, told Bloomberg Law. "Suits like this, in addition to enhanced SEC and state enforcement, will likely chill the market to a degree," said Knight. "There is a risk that the chill will disproportionately impact legitimate firms who are scared off of an innovative delivery method, rather than frauds who are looking to scam people anyway." [GN] * Ont. Class Action Law Review Must Consider Environmental Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lindgren, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that most Canadian jurisdictions have developed laws, regulations and rules of practice that facilitate class actions by representative plaintiffs who bring claims on behalf of large numbers of aggrieved persons, including those affected by pollution. The public-policy reasons for establishing an effective class action regime include enhancing access to justice, ensuring judicial efficiency and modifying defendants' conduct through the imposition of civil liability in cases that may otherwise be uneconomical or problematic to pursue as individual claims. To achieve these objectives, the Ontario government enacted the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) in 1992. This legislation has remained substantially unchanged over the intervening years, and it enables the plaintiff to bring a motion requesting the Superior Court of Justice to "certify" that the claim can proceed as a class action against the defendant. The CPA further provides that an action "shall" be certified by the court if the following criteria are satisfied: -- The pleadings disclose a cause of action. -- There is an identifiable class of persons to be represented by the plaintiff. -- The claims raise common issues of fact or law. -- A class proceeding is the preferable procedure for resolving the common issues. -- The plaintiff would fairly and adequately represent the class, has produced a workable litigation plan and does not have a conflict with other class members on the common issues. Aside from this certification test, the CPA also contains provisions relating to public notice, opt-out procedure, discovery, statistical evidence, limitations, settlement, judgment distribution, fee agreements and costs in the class action context. After the legislation went into effect 25 years ago, it has been estimated that approximately 900 class actions have been commenced in many diverse areas of law, including product liability, consumer/privacy rights, competition law, securities/investors' rights and employment law. Many observers also anticipated that over time, the CPA would become well used by plaintiffs bringing claims based on contaminant discharges into air, land or water that result in widespread property damage, economic loss or personal injury within affected communities. However, it appears that only a relatively small handful of environmental class actions have been successful in obtaining certification under the CPA. In some environmental cases, certification has been granted on consent, as occurred in the class action arising from the Walkerton drinking water tragedy in 2000. In other cases, certification motions have been vigorously contested by defendants, and the courts have denied certification in several environmental cases under the CPA. For example, in Hollick v. Toronto 2001 SCC 68, the representative plaintiff proposed a class action on behalf of 30,000 residents in relation to odour, noise and other nuisance impacts caused by a large municipal landfill. The Supreme Court of Canada denied certification on the basis that the class action was not the "preferable procedure" for addressing common issues, particularly since a no-fault small claims fund already existed to provide compensation for off-site effects upon site neighbours. In another high-profile environmental case (Smith v. Inco Ltd. 2011 ONCA 628), certification was eventually granted under the CPA after the action was narrowed to exclude health-based claims, and instead focused upon residential property value depreciation that the plaintiff attributed to the aerial deposition of nickel particles from the defendant's refinery. After a 45-day trial on common issues, judgment was granted in favour of the representative plaintiff, and damages totalling $36 million were awarded to class members. However, the trial judgment was overturned on appeal, and the defendant was awarded $1.7 million in costs. The independent Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) announced last year that it is commencing a comprehensive review of the CPA to determine "whether class actions are fulfilling their three-part promise to improve access to justice, foster judicial efficiency and promote behaviour modification." The LCO project, which began preliminary consultations in November 2017, includes opportunities for input from lawyers, legal organizations, academics, government officials and other stakeholders. A consultation paper is expected to be released early this year. During the forthcoming public consultation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) will be advocating for certain amendments to the CPA in order to address the legal barriers and economic hurdles that have arisen in environmental class actions. For example, CELA recommends that: -- the "preferable procedure" criterion of the CPA certification test should be modified or deleted. -- the CPA should establish a "one-way" cost rule for environmental class actions (i.e., costs may be awarded to, but not against, the representative plaintiff). -- in the alternative, the CPA should limit or cap the cost liability of representative plaintiffs (or the Class Proceedings Fund, where the Law Foundation of Ontario has provided funding assistance) in environmental class actions. If these and other appropriate CPA reforms are implemented in a timely manner, Ontarians will be better positioned to obtain judicial redress in toxic tort actions, climate-change litigation or other large-scale environmental claims involving mass harm. Richard Lindgren is a staff lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. 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. * * * End of Transmission * * *