/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180228.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 28, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 43 Headlines 99 CENTS: "Bradford" Suit Underway in California 99 CENTS: Appeal from "Barriga" Case Ruling Underway 99 CENTS: Says "Picket" Suit Has Concluded 99 CENTS: Settlement in "Clavel" Suit Being Administered 99 CENTS: Trial in "Mejia" Suit Moved to April 16 ADVANCED MEDICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA AMERICAN INCOME: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ANGLO AMERICAN: Reports Progress in Silicosis Prevention APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit Still in Discovery APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Putative Class Action Remains Stayed APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Amend ClubCorp Shareholder Complaint APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Bid to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Granted APOLLO GLOBAL: Time to Appeal Dismissal Order Expired APOLLO GLOBAL: AEG Pays $2.1MM as Counsel Fees and Expenses APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action AURORA ICE: Judge Rules Detainees Can Proceed With Lawsuit AUSTRALIA: Redlynch Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Towers BABCOCK & WILCOX: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims BEBE STORES: Court Okays Settlement Agreement with Employees BEBE STORES: Settlement Pact in TCPA Class Action Okayed BRIXMOR PROPERTY: SDNY Court Okays $28-Mil. Settlement Agreement BROTHERS OF SACRED HEART: Sexual Abuse Victims File Class Action BURGER & LOBSTER: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York CAESARS ACQUISITION: Time to Refile "Koskie" Suit Has Elapsed CALAVO GROWERS: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suits Awaits Court OK CALIFORNIA: Water Resources Dep't Sued Over Oroville Dam Breach CALIFORNIA: DA Sues Water Resources Dep't Over Oroville Dam CAVIUM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Marvell Deal CDK GLOBAL: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California CHICAGO, IL: Parents of Disabled Students File Class Action CHICAGO BRIDGE: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger COMMAND SECURITY: "Beavers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Write-downs DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pontiac Securities Suit Still Ongoing DEUTSCHE BANK: March 12 Deadline Set to Oppose RMBS Class Status DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Status Bid in Trust Suit Still in Discovery DH RIDGEWOOD: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DICK SMITH: NSW Court Allows Investors' Class Action to Proceed DOMINION ENERGY: Faces Metzler Asset Suit in South Carolina DOMINION ENERGY: Firemen's Retirement Files Suit in S. Carolina DOUGLASTON DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York DUKE UNIVERSITY: Intends to Deny Hiring Collusion Claims EVERSOURCE ENERGY: New Englanders File Antitrust Class Action FIRESTAR DIAMOND: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York FIRST POTOMAC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Class Action FIRST SOLAR: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment FORSTER & GARBUS LLP: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E.D. New York GLAMOUR BY ISSAM: "All Hair" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations GLOBAL POWER: Third Amended Complaint Filed in "Budde" Suit GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Project Fi" KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Humana Sale HABIB AMERICAN BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York HALLIBURTON CO: Bid to Drop "Magruder" Class Suit Still Pending HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Former Salespeople Sue Over Commissions HYUNDAI MOTOR: Jones Day Lawyers Examine Class Decertification HY'S LIVERY: "Belgada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations INSPERITY INC: Retirement Plan Class Action Suit Still Pending J.L.C. JEWELERS: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rochester Drug Files Suit in Pa. Over Remicade KINDER MORGAN: UPRR Easements and Related Lawsuits Still Ongoing KINDER MORGAN: Appeal from "Brinckerhoff" Suit Dismissal Pending MDL 2804: El Dorado Reverses Decision to Join Opioid Suit METLIFE INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit METLIFE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action METROPOLITAN LIFE: Financial-Services Reps File Class Action MIZUHOD BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Bitcoins Currency MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: CFTC Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery NAVIENT CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Putative Class Lawsuit NAVIENT CORP: "Pope" and "Gross" Stockholder Class Suits Pending NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in "Ubaldi" and "Blyden" Suits Pending NAVIENT CORP: Expects Amended Complaint in Lord Abbett Funds Suit NAVIENT CORP: Court Approves Settlement in "Johnson" Suit NCAA: Judge Set to Hear Summary Judgment Motions NESTLE USA: Must Face Class Action Over Raisinets, Judge Rules NQ MOBILE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action OAKHURST DAIRY: To Pay Workers $5MM Because of Missing Comma OHANA MILITARY: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial to 9th Cir. ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "B.R." Suit PARKWAY INC: "Price" and "Scarantino" Merger Suits Nixed PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Suit Underway PG&E CORP: Faces 6 Putative Class Action Lawsuits at Jan. 31 POW! ENTERTAINMENT: Norwood Files Class Suit v. Founder, Officers PURDUE PHARMA: To Stop Marketing Opioids to U.S. Physicians RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Certification Bid Due March 9 REALPAGE INC: Screening Co. Settles FCRA Case for $1MM REDFIN CORP: Settlement Awaits Final Court Okay REGAL ENERTAINMENT: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger REGAL ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Pact to Dismiss "Baldassano" Claims RHODE ISLAND: EOHHS Sued Over Non-Payment of Medicare Premiums RIGHT SOLUTIONS: "Brock" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ROCHE-BOBOIS USA: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York SAN DIEGO, CA: "Arellano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT SEARS CANADA: Pensioners Want Ex-Judge Named Litigation Trustee SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D. of New York SEVCON INC: Scarantino and Wilkinson Drop Class Suits SHORETEL INC: Lawsuits Over Mitel Merger Terminated SIGNATURE BANK: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. of New York SIU MEDICINE: Three Female Doctors Join Wage-Discrimination Suit SPARTON CORP: Paid $200,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Indemnification Suit Still Ongoing STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. SUPER MICRO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action SYNDICATED OFFICE: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims TEZOS: SEC Denies Release of Project Documents Amid Lawsuit TRUCKPRO LLC: "Broaden" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA TRUNK CLUB: Judge Dismisses Noncompete Agreement Class Action ULTA BEAUTY: Lawsuit Alleges Resale of Used Cosmetics as New UNION NU DONUTS: Faces "Bakul" Suit in E.D. New York UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Face Rail Shippers' Antitrust Suit UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Stay CSR Class Action UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 2nd Amended Federal Securities Suit UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal on Nixed TCPA Claims Still Ongoing UTAH: No Hearing Date Yet in I/DD Class Action v. Health Dep't. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Israel WASHINGTONFIRST BANKSHARES: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Faces "Shadwick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT WEINSTEIN CO: New York AG Sues Amid Pending Class Action WILLIAM BARTHMAN JEWELER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. N.Y. XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Ongoing XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK on TCPA Suit Settlement Agreement * UK Cos. May Face More Data-Protection Related Class Actions ********* 99 CENTS: "Bradford" Suit Underway in California ------------------------------------------------ 99 Cents Only Stores LLC continues to face the lawsuit, Venzel Bradford v. BaronHR, Inc., et al. in California court. Former warehouse worker Venzel Bradford filed a putative class action complaint against BaronHR, Inc., Solvis Staffing Services, Inc., Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, and the Company on April 26, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On behalf of himself and all others alleged to be similarly situated, Bradford is asserting claims for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide proper wage statements, and unfair competition. In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2017, 99 Cents said, "Bradford was not employed by the Company; he was employed by one or more of the staffing agencies named as defendants. The Company has sought indemnity from the employing agency(ies). The Court proceeding was stayed and an initial status conference was scheduled for September 15, 2017." In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, 99 Cents said, "The Company has sought indemnity from the employing agency(ies), and BaronHR, LLC has agreed to provide the requested indemnity. On or about September 21, 2017, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, as a Defendant. On or about October 10, 2017, the Company filed an answer, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. An initial status conference was held on September 15, 2017. Because the other defendants (including BaronHR, which apparently employed Plaintiff Bradford) were not given notice of the hearing, a continued status conference was set for October 30, 2017. "Following further discussions among the parties, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss his classwide allegations but he indicated that he intended to proceed with his suit as a PAGA action instead of a class action. On or about October 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request and declaration in support of his request to dismiss his classwide allegations. "The Company took the position that Plaintiff must first arbitrate his individual claims prior to attempting to pursue his PAGA claim. In addition, because Plaintiff Bradford was included among the allegedly aggrieved employees in the Clavel PAGA action, the Company identified the Clavel action to the Court since the Judgment there will affect -- and may preclude -- Plaintiff Bradford's ability to bring PAGA claims in this action. Following these submissions, the Court independently rescheduled the status conference to December 15, 2017. Pending this conference, discovery in the matter remains stayed. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and refrigerated food products. 99 CENTS: Appeal from "Barriga" Case Ruling Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff has taken an appeal from a court ruling in the case, Sofia Wilton Barriga v. 99› Only Stores. The case Sofia Wilton Barriga v. 99› Only Stores, was filed by a former store associate against the Company on August 5, 2013, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside alleging on behalf of the plaintiff and all others allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor Code that the Company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, provide meal periods, pay wages timely upon termination, and provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiff also asserted a derivative claim for unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all non-exempt employees who were employed in California in the Company's retail stores who worked the graveyard shift at any time from January 1, 2012, through the date of trial or settlement. Although the class period as originally pled would extend back to August 5, 2009, the parties have agreed that any class period would run beginning January 1, 2012, because of the preclusive effect of a judgment in a previous matter. The plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs, and restitution. On September 23, 2013, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations. A case management conference was held on October 4, 2013, at which the court ordered that discovery may proceed as to class certification issues only. After discovery commenced, a mediation was held on March 12, 2015, resulting in a confidential mediator's proposal, which the parties verbally accepted. The parties were unable to negotiate and finalize a written settlement agreement. Subsequent settlement discussions directly and through the mediator, as well as a court-ordered settlement conference, were unsuccessful. Discovery resumed and plaintiff's motion for class certification was fully briefed. Plaintiff also brought a motion to strike the evidence submitted in support of the Company's opposition to class certification. At the Court's request the parties mediated this matter prior to any ruling on the class certification motion and the motion to strike. That mediation took place on March 2, 2017, and did not result in a settlement. The motion for class certification and motion to strike were heard on April 20, 2017, and on April 26, 2017, the Court issued a minute order denying both motions. The Court issued a more detailed order setting forth its reasoning on August 10, 2017, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2017. On October 26, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed another action in Los Angeles Superior Court, entitled Ivan Guerra v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC (Case No. BC599119), which asserts PAGA claims based in part on the allegations at issue in the Barriga action. By stipulation of the parties, the Guerra action has been transferred to Riverside Superior Court. This action was mediated along with the Barriga action in the March 2, 2017 mediation that did not result in a settlement. The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, that on October 10, 2017, Plaintiff Barriga filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's August 10 Order. On November 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to stay the Guerra action pending the outcome of the appeal in the Barriga action. That motion was scheduled to be heard on December 14, 2017. 99 Cents said "The Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuits." 99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and refrigerated food products. 99 CENTS: Says "Picket" Suit Has Concluded ------------------------------------------ The case Shelley Pickett v. 99› Only Stores, has concluded, according to 99 Cents Only Stores LLC's regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Plaintiff Shelley Pickett, a former cashier for the Company, filed a representative action complaint against the Company on November 4, 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles alleging a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claim that the Company violated section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 by failing to provide seats for its cashiers behind checkout counters. Pickett seeks civil penalties of $100 to $200 per violation, per each pay period for each affected employee, and attorney's fees. The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration of Pickett's individual claims or, in the alternative, to strike the representative action allegations in the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. On June 27, 2013, Pickett entered into a settlement agreement and release with the Company in another matter. Payment has been made to the plaintiff under that agreement and the other action has been dismissed. The Company's position is that the release Pickett executed in that matter waives the claims she asserts in this action, waives her right to proceed on a class or representative basis or as a private attorney general and requires her to dismiss this action with prejudice as to her individual claims. The Company notified Pickett of its position by a letter dated as of July 30, 2013, but she refused to dismiss the lawsuit. On February 11, 2014, the Company answered the complaint, denying all material allegations, and filed a cross-complaint against Pickett seeking to enforce her agreement to dismiss this action. Through the cross-complaint, the Company seeks declaratory relief, specific performance and damages. Pickett has answered the cross- complaint, asserting a general denial of all material allegations and various affirmative defenses. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to its cross-complaint and granted leave to Pickett to amend her complaint to add another representative plaintiff, Tracy Humphrey. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 8, 2014, and the Company answered on October 10, 2014, denying all material allegations. On April 4, 2016, in an unrelated matter involving similar claims against a different employer, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that provides guidance to lower courts as to California's employee seating requirement, which is a largely untested area of law. The instant action had been stayed pending the issuance of the California Supreme Court ruling. The stay was lifted and the parties mediated this matter on October 19, 2016. The mediation did not result in a settlement. A bench trial was originally scheduled for May 31, 2017, and had been continued by the Court to June 6, 2017. The Court bifurcated the trial so that it will address liability in the first phase, and penalties in a second phase, if necessary. The Company filed a motion to strike the representative allegations in the complaint and focus the trial on the two stores where the named Plaintiffs worked. That motion was heard on May 9, 2017, and, on May 25, 2017, the motion to strike was denied and the motion to phase trial was granted. The parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached agreement to resolve the matter for an immaterial amount, subject to statutory notice requirements and court approval. The settlement has now been finalized and the Court approved the settlement on August 1, 2017, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2017. The time to appeal has expired, the Company has fulfilled its obligations under the settlement, including payment, and this matter is now concluded, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2017. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and refrigerated food products. 99 CENTS: Settlement in "Clavel" Suit Being Administered -------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in the case, Phillip Clavel v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC, et al., is being administered, 99 Cents Only Stores LLC said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Former warehouse worker Phillip Clavel filed an action against the Company on March 30, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of himself and all other alleged aggrieved employees, seeking civil penalties under the PAGA for the following alleged Labor Code violations: failure to pay regular, overtime and minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to provide proper meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to provide notice of the material terms of employment under the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose during two periods of employment -- one from March 2015 through mid-October 2015, during which he was employed by the Company as a forklift operator in the Commerce Distribution Center, and a second period from late October 2015 through February 2016, when he was similarly employed (through a staffing agency, BaronHR) at the Company's Washington Boulevard warehouse. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The Company answered the First Amended Complaint on June 14, 2016, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. BaronHR has also answered the First Amended Complaint. Trial has been set to commence on July 18, 2017. A mediation took place on January 19, 2017, and at the conclusion of the mediation, the parties executed a term sheet settlement agreement to resolve the alleged PAGA claims. The parties have now executed a long-form settlement agreement reflecting the final terms; however, the settlement is contingent on Court approval. The Court conducted a preliminary approval hearing on August 10, 2017, and requested additional information from Plaintiff. At a further hearing on August 29, 2017, preliminary approval of the settlement was granted, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2017. 99 Cents said "The Company accrued an immaterial amount related to this matter as of January 27, 2017 and July 28, 2017. If the proposed settlement is not finalized or not approved by the Court, the Company will not be able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit." In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, the Company said, "At a further hearing on August 29, 2017, the Court entered an order granting approval of the settlement and entered a Judgment in accordance with the terms of the Order and the Parties' PAGA Settlement Agreement. The Company contributed $175,000 to the total settlement amount of $500,000. The settlement is presently being administered and a declaration from the Settlement Administrator certifying that payments have been made pursuant to the Judgment will be provided after all payments are made." 99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and refrigerated food products. 99 CENTS: Trial in "Mejia" Suit Moved to April 16 ------------------------------------------------- Trial in the case, Jimmy Mejia, et al. v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC, has been continued at the parties' request to April 16, 2018, 99 Cents Only Stores LLC said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Former store associates Jimmy Mejia and Yamilet Serrano filed an action against the Company on September 16, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of themselves and all other alleged aggrieved employees, seeking civil penalties under the PAGA for the following alleged Labor Code violations: failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to provide proper meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages during employment and upon termination, and failure to provide proper wage statements. On November 14, 2016, the Company answered the complaint, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. Trial has been scheduled for January 8, 2018, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2017. In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, 99 Cents said the trial was initially scheduled for January 8, 2018, and has been continued at the parties' request to April 16, 2018. 99 Cents said "The Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit." 99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and refrigerated food products. ADVANCED MEDICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, alleging the companies failed to pay their non- exempt employees working in California for all their overtime hours worked and allegedly failed to provide all legally required meal and rest periods under California law. The pending class action lawsuit against Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2018-00226320. The Complaint alleges that Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC failed and continues to fail to accurately calculate and pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their overtime worked. State law provides that employees must be paid overtime at one-and-one-half times their "regular rate of pay." The pending class action lawsuit against both Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, alleges that the companies failed to have a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty-minute uninterrupted meal break to their California non-exempt employees. Consequently, employees working for the California companies allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without additional compensation. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC call attorney Nicholas De Blouw, Esq. nick@bamlawca.com at (858) 952-0354. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with law offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------- Edward Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP and LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00306 (S.D. Ind., February 1, 2018), seeks damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff, Edward Taylor is a citizen of the State of Indiana, residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendants attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt which was allegedly owed to Springleaf Financial Services. Defendant Alltran Financial, LP operates a defaulted debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Indiana. In fact, Defendant Alltran was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. Defendant LVNV operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Indiana. In fact, Defendant LVNV was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Carissa K. Rasch, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708) 974-2900 Fax: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com carissa@philippslegal.com AMERICAN INCOME: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Austin Bruce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Income Life Insurance Company and Stephen Jubrey, Case No. 3:18-cv-00258 (N.D. Tex., January 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other applicable penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Austin Bruce worked for Defendants as an Insurance Agent from June 2017 until August 2017. Defendant American Income Life Insurance is an international company that sells life, health, and accident insurance throughout the United States, New Zealand, and Canada. Defendant Stephen Jubrey works for American Income Life Insurance as an Insurance Agent, owning and operating the Dallas division for Defendant American Income Life Insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com ANGLO AMERICAN: Reports Progress in Silicosis Prevention -------------------------------------------------------- Pete Lewis, writing for GroundUp, reports that the gold mines may at last be making progress with the prevention of silicosis among miners, figures presented at the Mining Indaba in Cape Town suggest. Graham Briggs, retired CEO of Harmony Gold, and part of the Occupational Lung Diseases Working Group, said silicosis diagnoses had dropped 24% from 853 cases in 2015 to 635 cases in 2016 on the four gold mines in the group. These are Anglo American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, and Harmony. Over the same period cases of pulmonary TB had dropped almost 14% (from 1,666 to 1,436 cases). Silicosis is a progressive, deadly lung disease caused by silica dust. Workers' lungs scarred by silica dust are much more likely to contract TB. The Working Group is a collaboration between senior management of the six largest mining groups in the industry (African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony, and Sibanye Stillwater) focused on occupational lung disease prevention and compensation. In 2003 the tripartite Mine Health and Safety Council, set up by an Act in 1996, set a target that no worker joining the industry after 2008 would contract silicosis. Briggs said that the drop in numbers was not conclusive proof that this milestone had been reached. The current silicosis class action case against the mines has shown that one reason for Briggs' caution on achievement of the target is that when workers leave employment at a mine, and return to rural homes, the onset of silicosis may not be detected by local health services. TB might be detected, but local health services might not connect this to the patient's work and so would not report it to the mine. Privately run diagnostic mine health services do not extend beyond a few centres of excellence near the mines. However, it should be easy to measure the incidence of these diseases among miners joining mines after 2008, while they are still in service, and this statistic would better assess success or failure in meeting the "no harm" target. In the past, silicosis cases have emerged among mineworkers with less than 10 years exposure to mine dust, so the time lapse is now sufficient to reveal any harm caused by insufficient reductions in dust levels since 2003 Another reason for caution is that there is no clear and consistent data on workers employed by labour brokers or contractors. Various estimates suggest that up to one-third of an operating mine's total labour force may be employed in this manner. These workers are likely to be more heavily exposed to mine dust, are more likely to lose their jobs when they contract TB or other lung disease, and are less likely to be picked up by the mine health surveillance system. They may be off the radar when it comes to evaluating progress on the milestone targets. Briggs reported significant progress with the "Ku-Riha" project, which is aimed at dealing with the enormous backlog of unclaimed compensation and unprocessed claims. From 2015 to 2016, settled claims leaped from 1,628 to 7,756, and total payouts to sick workers climbed from R79 million to R226 million. This chimes with similar progress being made on the backlogs of claims for injury and disease outside the mines, reported by the Department of Labour in December. But Briggs was much less forthcoming on progress with dust monitoring. He said sampling frequencies and dust analysis methods had improved in recent years, but he did not give any detail. For a long time South African mines have lagged behind world standards in this regard. State-of-the-art measurements outside SA are based on real-time camera imagery with graphical presentation of respirable dust levels to show individual workers' exposure over an entire shift. This enables scientists to analyse precisely which tasks and working places or technologies are causing peak silica exposures. The aim is efficient dust control measures, rather than just compliance with reporting requirements, as has been the case in South Africa for many decades. Briggs ended his presentation by drawing attention to the imminent settlement, overseen by the High Court, of the massive decade-long class action lawsuit on silicosis and TB by sick and disabled former mineworkers against the gold mines for negligence. This settlement will pay "top-up" benefits to sick workers, who will also receive their due compensation from the state. At last there may well be a seismic shift occurring in the prevention of and compensation for disease in the mining industry, but more transparency and independent scrutiny of data held by mining companies is necessary to confirm this. [GN] APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit Still in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the case, Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), is proceeding to discovery. On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors (including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"), which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015 secondary offering. The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a materially misleading registration statement for the secondary offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's 2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation. The two causes of action against the AP Entities are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price. Defendants removed the case to United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but the court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, which the defendants have appealed. Meanwhile, defendants moved to dismiss the action in state court, but the court denied that motion and the case is proceeding to discovery. The Company said, "Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Putative Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the putative class action filed by Michael McEvoy remains stayed as CEVA Investment Limited's bankruptcy proceedings continue. On August 3, 2017, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against AGM, Gareth Turner (an Apollo Partner) and Mark Beith (a former Apollo Principal) by Michael McEvoy on behalf of a class of current and former employees of subsidiaries of CEVA Group, LLC ("CEVA Group") who purchased restricted Class A shares in CEVA Investment Limited ("CIL"), the former parent company of CEVA Group. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them to purchase shares in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt restructuring of CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not receive a recovery. The complaint purports to seek damages in excess of EUR14 million. On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet ruled on the motion. On November 21, 2017, the Florida court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the case pending resolution of the CIL bankruptcy trustee's motion to enforce the automatic stay, staying the case until further Order. The Company said, "Based on the allegations in the complaint, Apollo believes that there is no merit to the claims. Additionally, as the case is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Amend ClubCorp Shareholder Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint in a purported stockholder class action related to ClubCorp Holdings Inc. Between July 25 and August 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed three purported stockholder class actions in the Nevada state and federal court against ClubCorp Holdings Inc. ("ClubCorp"), the directors of ClubCorp, and AGM, in connection with the proposed acquisition of ClubCorp. The cases in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada were originally captioned Meng v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., et al., No. A-17-758912-B ("Meng"); Baum v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759227- C ("Baum"); and Solak v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759987-B ("Solak"). On August 16, 2017, the Meng and Baum actions were consolidated with two other similar actions that did not name AGM as a defendant. The consolidated action is captioned In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-17-758912-B ("In re ClubCorp"). On September 21, 2017, the Solak action was consolidated into In re ClubCorp. On October 12, 2017, plaintiffs in In re ClubCorp filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint purports to assert claims against the directors of ClubCorp for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and candor owed to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of ClubCorp. The complaint includes allegations that the directors, among other things, agreed to a transaction at an unreasonably low price, failed to take the necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, gave preferential severance benefits to certain executives, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions, and included materially incomplete and misleading information in the proxy statement recommending that stockholders vote in favor of the acquisition. The complaint also purports to assert a claim against AGM for aiding and abetting the directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty. On November 15, 2017, another plaintiff with separate counsel filed a motion to intervene, attaching a proposed complaint in intervention containing similar allegations but asserting claims only against ClubCorp and its directors, not AGM. On December 19, 2017, a hearing was held in which the motion to intervene was denied. On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. The Company said, "Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made." Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Bid to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss all claims against CEC and the former directors, and dismissed the former CEC directors from the action. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in limited discovery. On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that CEC's former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further alleges that two members of the board who also served as the senior managers of CEC had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 1, 2017, the special master appointed by the Kansas court to oversee pre-trial proceedings recommended that the Kansas court grant defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On March 30, 2017, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. The proposed amended consolidated complaint does not name as defendants CEC or its former directors, and purports to substitute Goldman, Sachs & Co. in place of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. on the claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On June 1, 2017, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss all claims against CEC and the former directors, and dismissed the former CEC directors from the action. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the consolidated action, and therefore no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes that such action is without merit. Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity, credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APOLLO GLOBAL: Time to Appeal Dismissal Order Expired ----------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the time to appeal the order dismissing the lawsuit In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610, has expired and no appeals have been filed. After the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger among Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc., Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532, and Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later filed in the same Court, captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-002610. Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants AGM, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI, Merger Sub and Athene Holding and alleges, among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties to AMTG's stockholders and that the other defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches. The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that the proposed merger involves inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions with Athene Holding are unfair and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleading disclosures and omits certain material information. The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel, which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016. Defendants' motions to dismiss were fully briefed on October 31, 2016, and oral argument was held on December 8, 2016. On August 14, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motions and issued an opinion dismissing the operative complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The time to appeal the order dismissing the lawsuit has expired, and no appeals have been filed. Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity, credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APOLLO GLOBAL: AEG Pays $2.1MM as Counsel Fees and Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the court in the case captioned as, In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.), has entered an Order and Final Judgment on October 6, 2017, and that Apollo Education Group has paid $2.1 million to plaintiffs' counsel for fees and expenses. Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education Group, Inc. ("AEG") asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches in connection with a proposed acquisition of AEG. The defendants include, among others, AEG, members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Fund VIII, and certain subsidiaries of funds managed by Apollo. On April 12, 2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under the following caption: In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.). Shortly thereafter, the parties informed the Court that they had entered into a memorandum of understanding for a settlement that would, among other things, (i) provide for the dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release of any and all claims by the proposed class against the Defendants; and (ii) recognize that the pendency of the suit was, in part, a factor in the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase the price offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AEG"s common stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share. On April 10, 2017, the parties filed settlement papers for the Court's review following the consummation of the merger agreement on February 1, 2017, the completion by plaintiffs of three confirmatory discovery depositions on February 27, 2017, and the execution of a stipulation of settlement by the parties. On October 6, 2017, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment in which it (i) decreed that the class notice had been provided to the proposed class pursuant to and in the manner directed by the Order for Notice and Hearing entered on May 23, 2017 and June 29, 2017, (ii) certified the non-opt-out settlement class, and (iii) fully and finally approved the settlement in all respects, including the dismissal of the action with prejudice in full and final discharge of any and all claims by the class against the defendants. The Order and Final Judgment further provides for the agreed upon award of $2.1 million to plaintiffs' counsel for fees and expenses and that amount has in fact been paid by Apollo Education Group. Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity, credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on Jan. 29 of a class action accusing Apple of wiretapping, by failing to deliver text messages to people who had switched to other brands of smartphones. The appeals case is ADAM BACKHAUT; KENNETH MORRIS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 15- 17523 (9th Cir.). AURORA ICE: Judge Rules Detainees Can Proceed With Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- CBS News Denver reports that a decision February 9 by a federal appeals court clears the way for a class action lawsuit brought by nine detainees against an immigrant detention facility in Aurora. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling affirmed a district court's decision to allow the nine detainees to file the suit on behalf of approximately 60,000 people The detainees allege that the Aurora ICE Processing Center, owned and operated by The GEO Group, Inc., forced the detainees to clean the facility without pay and under threat of solitary confinement which, they claim, violates federal forced labor statutes. The detainees also claim GEO is breaking Colorado law by paying some detainees $1 a day to work at the facility, unjustly enriching the company. "This ruling shifts the power from a huge corporation to vulnerable detainees," said David Lopez of Outten & Golden, LLP, a law firm that represents the class. "With that power, detainees will be able to challenge long-standing practices that have allowed GEO to exploit detainee labor while pocketing taxpayer dollars." GEO won a competitive bid process in December 1986 to build the Aurora facility. It has capacity to hold 1,532 people and has won accreditation every year since 1989. A request for response to the court decision from GEO has not yet been answered. However, in July of 2015, when the district court judge ruled against GEO's request to dismiss the lawsuit, GEO said in a statement that its facilities "provide high-quality services in safe, secure and humane residential environments, and our company strongly refutes allegations to the contrary." The nine detainees in the case are Alejandro Menocal, Marcos Brambila, Grisel Xahuentitla, Hugo Hernandez, Lourdes Argueta, Jesus Gaytan, Olga Alexaklina, Dagoberto Vizguerra, and Demetrio Valegra. "Immigrant detainees are exactly the type of workers who need the class action mechanism to seek justice," explained Nina DiSalvo of Towards Justice, a non-profit legal group that represents the class. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Redlynch Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Towers ------------------------------------------------------------ Gavin King, writing for Tropic Now, reports that furious homeowners in Redlynch are in talks with a national law firm about a potential class action over the installation of 8 giant towers that will alert residents to major flooding emergencies at Copperlode Dam. The towers will feature loudspeakers and soar up to 20 metres high -- almost half the length of an Olympic swimming pool, with installation set to begin later this month throughout the Redlynch Valley from Crystal Cascades to Brinsmead. The towers are a joint project by Cairns Regional Council and the State Government, with installation to begin regardless of concerns and objections by homeowners. But Redlynch residents say the new warning system could devalue house prices and increase insurance premiums. The towers are being installed due to legislation introduced back in 2008. Redlynch resident Steven Dean told TropicNow he is in talks with Maurice Blackburn Lawyers about the potential for compensation, saying his family home -- along with hundreds more in the valley -- will be negatively impacted by the new risk profile of his property. "Thousands of dollars will be wiped off property prices in Redlynch Valley and insurance prices will go up even further than they already have over the last few years," he said. "When I bought my property the government or council didn't tell me about these legal requirements that put us in a major flood risk zone, even though the legislation has been there since 2008. "But when I go to sell my house, I will have to disclose that it's in a major flood risk area, so of course that will devalue my property. "By my estimation there are up to 1000 homes affected by this new flood zoning, and I'm sure more people will join me in looking at what legal action we might be able to take against the council and state government. "I've never, ever thought of taking a class action or anything like that before in my life, but this is my family asset and it's totally wrong to bring this in now." 'NO INCREASED RISK' In a letter distributed to affected households on January 31, council told residents the new early warning towers would be completed by June. "Under direction from State Government, Council is enhancing the measures contained within the (Copperlode Dam) Emergency Action Plan and is expanding the early warning system. "This correspondence is to advise you of outdoor warning stations that will be installed in your area. "Using the most advanced technology available, the outdoor warning stations will consist of a series of towers housing speakers mounted on metal poles at a height of 15-20 metres above ground. A visual lights warning system may also be included but is yet to be confirmed. "It is a requirement of state legislation that dam owners have a robust early warning system to notify the population at risk in the event of a dam emergency. This does not imply there is an increased risk, but provides greater security to the community in the unlikely event of an emergency situation arising." The towers will form part of council's "multi-channel" communications during an emergency, with real-time alerts and information also delivered via text messages, phone calls, emails, radio broadcasts and social media. More information about the Copperlode Dam Emergency Action Plan is available at: http://data.dnrm.qld.gov.au/eap/copperlode-falls-eap.pdf[GN] BABCOCK & WILCOX: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP, is investigating potential violations of the federal and state securities laws by Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: BW) ("Babcock & Wilcox") and certain of its officers. Babcock & Wilcox provides fossil and renewable power generation and environmental equipment for the power and industrial markets worldwide. Last year, a Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of those who purchased securities of Babcock & Wilcox between June 17, 2015 and August 9, 2017. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose that: (1) due to rapid growth in the Renewable segment and cost- cutting strategies, the Company lacked sufficient expertise or engineering and other resources to perform on time and within budget the Renewable contracts in its backlog, thereby rendering the backlog an improbable and unrealistic source of profitability; and (2) there were ongoing, undisclosed material problems within the Renewable segment that were exacerbated by the undisclosed diversion of limited resources. On February 9, 2018, Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. If you have held Babcock & Wilcox shares continuously before June 17, 2015, you may have standing to hold Babcock & Wilcox harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are a Babcock & Wilcox shareholder continuously holding shares before June 17, 2015, and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. [GN] BEBE STORES: Court Okays Settlement Agreement with Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017, that the parties in the Case No. CIVRS1011823 filed by a former employee are in the process of the administration of the settlement with the class members. A former employee filed a complaint against the Company on November 2, 2010, in the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County (Case No. CIVRS1011823) alleging failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other violations of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code 17200 et. seq. The plaintiff purported to bring the action on behalf of current and former California bebe stylists and sales associates who are similarly situated. The complaint sought damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief among other remedies. In June 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement conditioned upon final Court approval. In December 2017, the Court issued its order granting final approval of the class action settlement. The parties are in the process of the administration of the settlement with the class members. bebe stores said, " The Company believes the settlement amounts, accrued in Q4 of fiscal 2017, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." bebe stores, inc. does not have significant operations. Previously, it was engaged in the design, development, and production of women's apparel and accessories. The Company marketed its products under the bebe and BEBE SPORT brand names through its retail stores; bebe.com, an online store; and 39 bebe outlet stores. It also offered its products through its 82 international licensee operated stores in 22 countries. bebe stores, inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Brisbane, California. BEBE STORES: Settlement Pact in TCPA Class Action Okayed -------------------------------------------------------- A court has granted its final approval of a settlement agreement in a purported class action filed against bebe stores, inc. related to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on February 12, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017. A customer served the Company with a complaint on January 31, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. C14-267 DMR) alleging various violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.) and violations of California's unfair competition law (California Business and Professions Code 17200, et. seq.) stemming from an alleged failure to obtain customer consent prior to sending text messages. The plaintiff purported to bring the action on behalf of others similarly situated. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief among other remedies. A companion proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:14-CV- 01968)) was consolidated with this action. In April 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement conditioned upon final Court approval. In July 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement, bebe stores said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The parties are in the process of the administration of the settlement with the class members. In December 2017, the Court issued its order granting final approval of the class action settlement. The parties are in the process of the administration of the settlement with the class members. bebe stores said, "The Company believes the settlement amounts, accrued in fiscal 2017, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." bebe stores, inc. does not have significant operations. Previously, it was engaged in the design, development, and production of women's apparel and accessories. The Company marketed its products under the bebe and BEBE SPORT brand names through its retail stores; bebe.com, an online store; and 39 bebe outlet stores. It also offered its products through its 82 international licensee operated stores in 22 countries. bebe stores, inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Brisbane, California. BRIXMOR PROPERTY: SDNY Court Okays $28-Mil. Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on December 13, 2017, has granted final approval of the settlement of the putative securities class action complaint filed in March 2016 by the Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds related to the review conducted by Brixmor Property Group Inc.'s audit committee, according to Brixmor Property's Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Pursuant to the approved settlement, without any admission of liability, the Company will pay US$28 million to settle the claims. This amount is within the coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies. The settlement provides for the release of, among others, the Company, its subsidiaries, and their respective current and former officers, directors and employees from the claims that were or could have been asserted in the class action litigation. Certain institutional investors elected to opt out of the settlement and will not be bound by the release or receive any settlement proceeds. The Company expects that the resolution of any future related claims asserted by such opt-outs will also be within the coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies. Brixmor Property Group Inc. engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition and development of retail shopping centers. BROTHERS OF SACRED HEART: Sexual Abuse Victims File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kugler Kandestin has filed a class action claiming millions of dollars for victims of sexual abuse committed by Brothers of Sacred Heart at College Mont Sacre-Coeur in Granby. The class action seeks to enable access to justice to numerous people who were victims of sexual abuse during their childhood, by religious members of the Brothers of Sacred Heart associated with College Mont-Sacre-Coeur in Granby. The class action alleges that the reprehensible and unacceptable sexual abuse was perpetrated systematically for several decades by at least 18 religious Brothers. If you, or anybody you know, was sexually abused by a religious member of the Brothers of Sacred Heart Congregation, including Brother Claude Lebeau (also known as Brother Gatien), Brother Jean-Guy Roy, Brother Paul-Emile Blain, Brother Louis Raymond (Raymond Decelles), Brother Majoric Duchesne, Brother Roch Messier, Brother Herve Aubin (also known as "Frere Econome"), Brother Georges-Arthur, Brother Gerry, Brother Eudes, Brother Gilles, Brother Lucien Martel (Brother Gedeon), Brother Jean Royer, Brother Jean-Claude Leduc, Brother Arcene, Brother Ephrem Chaput (Brother Aldei), Brother Patrice (Cyrille Picard), Brother Antonio, we encourage you to communicate with the undersigned lawyers so that we may inform you of your rights. Your communications with us are free and will be kept strictly confidential. Contact information: Me Robert Kugler rkugler@kklex.com (514) 878-2861, ext. 116 Me Pierre Boivin pboivin@kklex.com (514) 878-2861, ext. 103 Me Olivera Pajani opajani@kklex.com (514) 878-2861, ext. 149 [GN] BURGER & LOBSTER: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burger & Lobster Bryant Park LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Burger & Lobster Bryant Park LLC and Burger & Lobster Flatiron LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01624 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Burger & Lobster serves wild live lobster and corn fed Nebraskan beef burgers since 2011.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com CAESARS ACQUISITION: Time to Refile "Koskie" Suit Has Elapsed ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the time granted to plaintiff in the case, Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., to refile has passed without there being any refiling. On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class action on behalf of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company ("CAC") entitled, Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., No. A-14-711712-C (Clark Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the "Koskie Action"), against CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of CAC's Board of Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur (each an Apollo partner). The lawsuit challenges CAC's and Caesars Entertainment's plan to merge, alleging that the proposed transaction will not give CAC shareholders fair value. Koskie asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the director defendants' interrelationships with the entities involved the proposed transaction. The case has been dismissed for failure to prosecute, and the time granted to the plaintiff to refile has passed without there being any refiling. Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity, credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. CALAVO GROWERS: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suits Awaits Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2017, that the parties in two class action lawsuits are awaiting court approval of a settlement agreement. The company is a named defendant in two class action lawsuits filed in Superior state courts in California alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation, as well as statutory penalties for violation of the California Labor Code and Minimum Wage Order-2014. In August 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement of the case, whereby we agreed to pay $0.4 million to resolve the allegations and avoid further distraction that would result if the litigation continued. The settlement is subject to court approval. The Company recorded $0.4 million as a selling, general and administrative expense in the third quarter of fiscal 2017. Calavo Growers, Inc. markets and distributes avocados, prepared avocados, and other perishable foods to food distributors, produce wholesalers, supermarkets, convenience stores, and restaurants worldwide. It operates in three segments: Fresh Products, Calavo Foods, and RFG. The Company was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Santa Paula, California. CALIFORNIA: Water Resources Dep't Sued Over Oroville Dam Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that dozens of farms and people sued the California Department of Water Resources on Jan. 31 in Butte County Court for losses from the breach of the Oroville Dam; the city of Oroville filed a similar complaint two weeks ago. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Niall P. Mccarthy, Esq. Adam M. Shapiro, Esq. Toriana S. Holmes, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facs1mile: (650) 697-0577 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com ashapiro@cpmlegal.com tholmes@cpmlegal.com -- and -- James V. Nolan, Esq. David W. Janes, Esq. GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, HUGO & NOLAN 429 First Street Woodland, CA 95695 Telephone: (530) 662-7367 Facs1mile: (530) 666-9116 Email: jvnolan@yololaw.com dwjanes@yololaw.com CALIFORNIA: DA Sues Water Resources Dep't Over Oroville Dam ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that California residents, represented by the Butte County district attorney, slapped the state Department of Water Resources with another lawsuit related to the near-collapse of the nation's tallest dam in 2017, this time over the damage the torrent did to the Feather River. The case is THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES and DOES 1 through 25, Defendant, Civil Case No. 18CV00415. Attorney for Plaintiff: Michael L. Ramsey, Esq. District Attorney County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Tel: (530) 538-7411 Fax: (530) 538-7071 CAVIUM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Marvell Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse Service, reported that Cavium shareholders claim self-seeking directors sold the semiconductor company to (nonparty) Marvell Technology Group for $1.8 billion less than it's worth, in Monterey County Court. Attorney for Plaintiff: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: 877.534.2590 Fax: 310.247.0160 CDK GLOBAL: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a California car dealership claims in a federal class action that software companies CDK Global and Reynolds and Reynolds monopolized the dealer management system and data integration services markets by agreeing not to compete with each other. Counsel for Plaintiff: Richard J. Prendergast, Esq. Michael T. Layden, Esq. Collin M. Bruck, Esq. RICHARD J. PRENDERGAST, LTD. 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 641-0881 Email: rprendergast@rjpltd.com mlayden@rjpltd.com cbruck@rjpltd.com -- and -- Michael N. Nemelka, Esq. Aaron M. Panner, Esq. Derek T. Ho, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 Fax: (202) 326-7999 Email: mnemelka@kellogghansen.com apanner@kellogghansen.com dho@kellogghansen.com -- and -- Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. Brian Morrison, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: gasciolla@labaton.com cmcdonald@labaton.com bmorrison@labaton.com CHICAGO, IL: Parents of Disabled Students File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that in a federal class-action lawsuit, non-English speaking parents of disabled Chicago Public Schools students claim the school system has not translated vital documents or provided interpretation in the process to determine what special-education services their kids need. Attorney for Plaintiff: Donna Welch, Esq. Alec Solotorovsky, Esq. Jennifer Pinsof, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 862-2421 Fax: (312) 862-2200 -- and -- Olga Pribyl, Esq. Barry Taylor, Esq. Margo Weinstein, Esq. Margaret Wakelin, Esq. EQUIP FOR EQUALITY, INC. 20 N Michigan, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 341-0022 CHICAGO BRIDGE: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a federal class action, Chicago Bridge & Iron shareholders challenge the $6 billion merger with McDermott International in a stock swap. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com Of Counsel: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 -- and -- RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 COMMAND SECURITY: "Beavers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Torrence Beavers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Command Security Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00194 (M.D. Fla., February 1, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the federal wage and hour laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Torrence Beavers was employed by Defendant as an hourly paid "Security Officer" from on or about October 1, 2017 until the present in Jacksonville, Florida. Defendant Command Security Corporation is a foreign corporation with its principal address located at 512 Herndon Parkway, Suite A, Herndon, VA 20170. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC 6940 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Tel: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Write-downs ---------------------------------------------------------- Reshef Mashraky, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that Credit Suisse once again faces accusations of wrongdoing, as the bank faces litigation for its illegal write-downs, associated with its trading division. The allegations indicate the wrongful write-downs took place during 2015 and 2016. Meanwhile Credit Suisse has publicly denounced the claims, saying they are "without merit." What Went Wrong The cause of the entire ordeal stems from an initial inquiry into the status of the bank's trading unit by Credit Suisse Chief Executive Officer Tidjane Thiam. Together with CFO David Mathers, Mr. Thiam assessed the situation, and was rattled by the bank's level of illiquid trades that the division held. In response, the two executives began a thorough write-down process, which took two and a half months to complete, and approached the $1 billion level. At the forefront of the lawsuit, are pensions funds of police and firefighters in Birmingham, Alabama. The class action lawsuit currently addresses Mr. Thiam and Mr. Mathers's involvement in providing investors with false information. The misguided advice, given with regard to potentially high-risk propositions, led to a significant decline in the bank's stock price, thereby inflicting heavy losses on investors and shareholders. In response to the recently filed class action lawsuit, Suisse Bank has issued a statement: "The claim is unfounded and without merit . . . In the last three years, Credit Suisse has analyzed these allegations and responded to information requests from supervisory bodies. All regulatory reviews were closed without any action against Credit Suisse." Prior Accusations and Fines Unfortunately for the Swiss bank, this is not the only time in recent memory that the bank's conduct has been called into question. In November of last year, Credit Suisse was issued a hefty $135 million fine for misconduct and rigging practices in its FX trading arm. New York State Department of Financial Services pointed to the unsound practices occurring during 2008 to 2015. In another case, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong, issued a $39 million fine against the bank for various issues of control failures and a lack of proper client securities segregation. Cost-Cutting At the start of 2018, Credit Suisse has taken steps to reduce costs wherever possible. The Zurich-based bank has announced it will be closing one of its London offices, and will move some of its current staff to an alternative office space in the coming years. The move will likely include additional cutbacks, after the UK offices have already been trimmed from 9,000 employees in 2015 to 6,500. The bank plans to shed more of its staff by an additional 1,500, which would bring their London operational occupancy to 5,000 members. [GN] DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pontiac Securities Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended November 3, 2017, that the company continues to defend a securities class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-03644). On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory damages was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case No. 1:14- cv-03644). The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and the case is proceeding with discovery. The defendants believe the claims asserted are without merit and the risk of material loss is remote. Dell Technologies is a strategically aligned family of businesses that brings together the entire infrastructure from hardware to software to services -- from the edge to the data center to the cloud. Dell Technologies is a leader in the traditional technology of today and a leader in the cloud-native infrastructure of tomorrow. DEUTSCHE BANK: March 12 Deadline Set to Oppose RMBS Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas has until March 12, 2018 to oppose a group of investors' motion for class certification in a lawsuit related to certain residential mortgage backed securities trusts, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the distribution period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. DBNTC and DBTCA have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. DBNTC and DBTCA's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion is due on March 12, 2018, and Plaintiffs' reply is due on April 2, 2018. Discovery is ongoing. DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Status Bid in Trust Suit Still in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas has until March 16, 2018, to oppose the motion of "BlackRock plaintiffs" for class certification in a trust- related suit, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the distribution period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike. Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. DBNTC and DBTCA's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion is due on March 16, 2018, and Plaintiffs' reply is due on April 16, 2018. Discovery is ongoing. DH RIDGEWOOD: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Milton Boanerges Ayala Canas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DH Ridgewood Farm, Inc. dba DH Ridgewood Farm, Do Hyung Kim and Joon Chul Lee, Case No. 1:18- cv-00669 (E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law. Plaintiff Ayala was employed by Defendants at DH Ridgewood Farm from approximately July 2016 until on or about January 29, 2018. Defendants own, operate, or control a fruit and vegetable market, located at 6638 Fresh Pond Rd, Ridgewood, New York 11385 under the name "DH Ridgewood Farm". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 DICK SMITH: NSW Court Allows Investors' Class Action to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Leon Spencer, writing for ARN, reports that one of the two class actions being launched against Dick Smith Holdings has been given the green light to go ahead by the Supreme Court of NSW, joining at least two other associated legal cases in the process. The latest class action is being brought against the entity remaining following the retailer's collapse in 2016 -- now under the control of receivers, Ferrier Hodgson -- by Johnson Winter & Slattery, in partnership with Investor Claim Partner (ICP). It comes after Bannister Law, in partnership with Vannin Capital, formally filed another class action against the liquidated entity remaining following the retailer's collapse early last year in the Supreme Court of NSW on 28 September 2017. That action was also filed against two of Dick Smith Holdings' former directors, former CEO, Nicholas Abboud, and former CFO, Michael Potts. Both class actions scrutinise the financial information Dick Smith Holdings (DSH) and members of its leadership team presented to shareholders, with allegations in both legal actions of inflated figures. The class action proceedings launched by Bannister Law is understood to largely be representing the interests of smaller, 'mum-and-dad' investors, while the action filed by Johnson Winter & Slattery has been lodged for larger, institutional investors. The legal proceedings filed by Johnson Winter & Slattery allege that the failed electronics and IT retailer inflated the combined value of its assets and equity by about $150 million, after tax. In an overview of the proposed claim against Dick Smith Holdings (DSH), Johnson Winter & Slattery said that the action will allege DSH made misleading and deceptive statements about its financial standing. Specifically, the action will allege that DSH omitted information that investors and their professional advisers would "reasonably require to make a properly informed assessment of DSH's assets and liabilities, financial position, performance and future performance". The law firm also said it will allege that DSH engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations by making representations and omitting to disclose information. The NSW Supreme Court's Justice Ashley Black, handed down a decision on 9 February, granting leave for the commencement of the latest class action -- dubbed the "Mastoris Proceedings" -- which was filed by Johnson Winter & Slattery in early December last year. "I am satisfied that the proposed Mastoris Proceedings have a solid foundation and give rise to a serious dispute," Justice Black said. The earlier class action by Bannister Law alleges that DSHE, Abboud and Potts "contravened the provisions of the Corporation Act as DSHE's financial statement results published to the market in 2015 were misleading and deceptive". Specifically, the action alleges that the DSHE, along with the two former directors, did not give a true and fair view of the financial performance of the company and were not prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards. In particular, it is alleged that the accounting treatment of rebates by DSHE artificially inflated its reported profit and overstated EBITDA. The cases were launched after the collapse of the retailer in early 2016, along with the closure of its stores, followed closely behind a $60 million inventory write-down revealed in late 2015. A rebate-focused inventory buying policy was one of the main triggers of the company's collapse, according to a subsequent creditors' report. [GN] DOMINION ENERGY: Faces Metzler Asset Suit in South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominion Energy Inc. The case is styled as Metzler Asset Management GmbH and Joseph Heinz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Gregory E Aliff, James A Bennett, John F.A.V. Cecil, Sharon A Decker, D Maybank Hagood, Lynne M Miller, James W Roquemore, Maceo K Sloan, Alfredo Trujillo, Dominion Energy Inc and Sedona Corp, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00505- MBS (D.S.C., February 21, 2018). Dominion Energy, Inc. produces and transports energy in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Graham Lee Newman, Esq. Chappell Smith and Arden 2801 Devine Street, Suite 300 PO Box 12330 Columbia, SC 29205 Tel: (803) 929-3600 Fax: (803) 929-3604 Email: gnewman@csa-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Addison Mathias, Esq. Nexsen Pruet (Gville) PO Box 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Tel: (864) 282-1195 Email: amathias@nexsenpruet.com - and - Burl Franklin Williams, Esq. Nexsen Pruet (Gville) PO Box 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Tel: (864) 282-1165 Fax: (864) 477-2633 Email: bwilliams@nexsenpruet.com - and - William W Wilkins, Esq. Nexsen Pruet (Gville) PO Box 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Tel: (864) 282-1198 Fax: (864) 477-2698 Email: bwilkins@nexsenpruet.com DOMINION ENERGY: Firemen's Retirement Files Suit in S. Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominion Energy Inc. The case is styled as Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, Derivatively on Behalf of SCANA Corporation and Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Jimmy E Addison, D Maybank Hagood, Lynne M Miller, James A Bennett, Maceo K Sloan, Sharon A Decker, James W Roquemore, Alfredo Trujillo, John F.A.V. Cecil, Gregory E Aliff, Kevin B Marsh, Stephen A Byrne, James M Micali, Harold C Stowe, Dominion Energy Inc, Sedona Corp and SCANA Corporation a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00501-MBS (D. S.C., February 21, 2018). Dominion Energy, Inc. produces and transports energy in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Mixon Griffin, Esq. Griffin and Davis 1116 Blanding Street First Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (803) 744-0800 Fax: (803) 744-0805 Email: jgriffin@griffindavislaw.com - and - Richard A Harpootlian, Esq. Richard A. Harpootlian Law Office 1410 Laurel Street Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (803) 252-4848 Email: rah@harpootlianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Addison Mathias, Esq. Nexsen Pruet (Gville) PO Box 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Tel: (864) 282-1195 Email: amathias@nexsenpruet.com - and - Burl Franklin Williams, Esq. Nexsen Pruet (Gville) PO Box 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Tel: (864) 282-1165 Fax: (864) 477-2633 Email: bwilliams@nexsenpruet.com - and - William W Wilkins, Esq. Nexsen Pruet (Gville) PO Box 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Tel: (864) 282-1198 Fax: (864) 477-2698 Email: bwilkins@nexsenpruet.com DOUGLASTON DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglaston Development, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Douglaston Development, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01603 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Douglaston Development is a real estate development company affiliated with Levine Builders and Clinton Management, the business construction and management wings, respectively.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DUKE UNIVERSITY: Intends to Deny Hiring Collusion Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Ray Gronberg, writing for Herald Sun, reports that whether the president is named Obama or Trump, or the attorney general is named Lynch or Sessions, the U.S. Department of Justice has a consistent opinion on the sort of hiring collusion that a former Duke University radiologist alleges Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill have practiced. Namely, that it's illegal. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department confirmed that President Donald Trump's team there is standing by an October 2016 memo that equated formal or informal "no poach" agreements between employers to illegal price fixing because they "eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way." As policy, the memo credited to the department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission "is still good," said Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman who checked that at the request of The Herald-Sun. The memo is noteworthy for speaking directly to the question of whether universities can collude to reduce the competition for faculty hiring, even if the collusion is via a quiet "gentlemen's agreement" between them. Federal officials stressed that when it comes to collusion, nothing need be written down for there to be a violation of anti- trust law. "If you stopped recruiting and bidding for faculty from another university due to a gentleman's agreement, you have become a member of that no-poaching agreement and could be subject to criminal liability," they said, styling that as their answer to a question from a hypothetical human resources staffer at a hypothetical university who'd heard about an unwritten hiring agreement from "someone in the dean's office." Lawyers for former Duke radiologist Danielle Seaman have told a judge the memo's wording "seems inspired by the facts of" her lawsuit against Duke and UNC-CH. Ms. Seaman claims she was shut out of a potential job swap from an assistant professor's slot at Duke to an assistant professor's slot at UNC because of a no-poach agreement between the respective then-deans of the universities' medical schools, Nancy Andrews and Bill Roper. Ms. Seaman has documentation in the form of an email from a UNC official that told her "lateral moves between Duke and UNC are not permitted" because of the agreement. Subsequent investigation by her lawyers has secured a deposition from Roper -- still dean of the UNC School of Medicine and CEO of the UNC Health System -- that saw him admit to urging subordinates to avoid "hostile, unneighborly behavior" toward Duke on the hiring front. He also conceded that he'd asked Duke's former chancellor for health affairs, Victor Dzau, to consider formalizing "some kind of understanding between us about the movement of faculty." UNC has since settled with Ms. Seaman, pledging cooperation with her lawsuit, the avoidance of hiring collusion with any employer and an in-house effort to train senior officials on the relevant points of anti-trust law. Meanwhile, Duke has signaled that it intends to deny any wrongdoing. Roper told lawyers Dzau rejected his push for an understanding, and the Durham school can point to several successful raids by it of UNC medical professors. A federal judge has nonetheless allowed the case to proceed as a class- action lawsuit on behalf of about 5,649 Duke and UNC professors. Needless to say, Ms. Seaman's lawyers aren't taking Duke's forthcoming denials at face value. They suspect the absence of a formal agreement masked understandings and practices that amounted to collusion. They've also been keeping an eye on the Justice Department's stance, and are pleased it didn't change after Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions took over. "There appears to be bipartisan support for the common-sense proposition that these kinds of agreements are clearly unlawful," said lawyer Dean Harvey, a veteran of a successful collusion lawsuit that targeted Silicon Valley companies like Apple Corp. and Google Inc. Indeed, the Antitrust Division's chief, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, has signaled that the administration adheres not just to its predecessor's view of the law, but its get-tough strategy for enforcing it. THERE APPEARS TO BE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE COMMON-SENSE PROPOSITION THAT THESE KINDS OF AGREEMENTS ARE CLEARLY UNLAWFUL. Dean Harvey, lawyer for former Duke radiologist Danielle Seaman The Trump appointee, an Iranian immigrant who formerly served the president as a deputy White House counsel, told attendees of a recent conference at George Mason University's law school that the Justice Department intends to file criminal charges soon against several employers suspected of hiring collusion. "In the coming couple of months you will see some announcements, and to be honest with you, I've been shocked about how many of these there are," Mr. Delrahim said, according to a report from the legal-industry trade publication Law360. A second publication, Bloomberg Law, reported that Mr. Delrahim indicated that the department considers the October 2016 memo issued while Loretta Lynch was still U.S. Attorney General a dividing line. It will treat collusion that happened before the memo came out as a civil matter, resolvable through lawsuits. Collusion that followed the memo's publication, on the other hand, is a criminal matter, with its perpetrators subject to prosecution. That squared with the approach Obama administration officials advocated in a memo that vowed criminal investigations "going forward" and potential "felony charges against the culpable participants." Bloomberg Law reported that Mr. Delrahim also told his audience at George Mason that the Antitrust Division will look for civil lawsuits to file friend-of-the-court briefs in to get its point of view across. [GN] EVERSOURCE ENERGY: New Englanders File Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that New Englanders claim in a federal class action that they overpaid for electricity and natural gas by at least $3.6 billion from 2013 to 2016 because Eversource Energy and Avangrid inflated prices. Local counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed Classes: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Kristie LaSalle, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: 617.482.3700 Fax: 617.482.3003 Email: tom@hbsslaw.com kristiel@hbsslaw.com -- and -- David F. Sorensen, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215.875.3000 Fax: 215.875.4604 Email: dsorensen@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net gabramson@bm.net FIRESTAR DIAMOND: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firestar Diamond, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Firestar Diamond, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01600 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Firestar Diamond Inc. is a Jewellery manufacturer or wholesaler icon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FIRST POTOMAC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- First Potomac Realty Trust is defending a consolidated securities class action lawsuits in federal court in Maryland. On Feb. 15, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by Robert H. Arnold, First Potomac Realty Trust, James P. Hoffman, Robert Milkovich, Kati M. Penney, Thomas E. Robinson, Terry L. Stevens. The Trust said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in September 2017, that as disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, three purported federal securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the "Lawsuits") have been filed against the Company and each of the members of the Board of Trustees of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The first case, Schwartz v. First Potomac Realty Trust, et al., (No. 1:17-cv-2214-CCB), was filed on August 4, 2017; the second case, Sciabacucchi v. First Potomac Realty Trust, et al., (No. 1:17-cv-2245-JKB), was filed on August 8, 2017, and also names the Company LP and the GOV Parties as defendants; and the third case, Geml v. First Potomac Realty Trust, et al., (No. 1:17-cv-2263-CCB), was filed on August 10, 2017. Each lawsuit, which purports to have been brought on behalf of all holders of common shares of beneficial interest of the Company, par value $0.001 per share (the "Common Shares"), generally alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on July 31, 2017 failed to disclose material information about the pending merger transaction in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Schwartz complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the proposed merger transaction or consummating the proposed merger unless and until the Company discloses the allegedly omitted information, in addition to damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omissions, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses. The Sciabacucchi and Geml complaints seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the merger transaction, and seek to compel defendants to disseminate a proxy statement that contains the allegedly omitted information, in addition to rescissory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses. The First Potomac Parties and the GOV Parties continue to believe that all allegations in the complaints are without merit, and further believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws. However, the Company wishes to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger transaction solely for the purpose of mooting the allegations contained in the Lawsuits and avoiding the expense and burden of litigation. In an order dated November 15, 2017, Judge Catherine C. Blake granted a Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. The Schwartz case is the lead case. First Potomac Realty Trust is a self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT) that focuses on owning, operating, and redeveloping office and business park properties in the Washington, D.C. region. Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, the company maintains regional offices in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/GEYALd. FIRST SOLAR: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment on Jan. 31 to First Solar Inc. and its directors, whom shareholders accused of insider trading to reap hundreds of millions of dollars before the share price took a nosedive when defects in the company's solar panels were disclosed. Jordan Eth (argued), Paul Flum, Judson E. Lobdell, and James R. Sigel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California; Joseph N. Roth, Osborn Maledon P.A., Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendants- Appellants. Luke O. Brooks (argued), Jason A. Forge, Daniel S. Drosman, and Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, California; Matthew S. Melamed, Andrew S. Love, and Susan K. Alexander, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP. The case is styled as Jonathan Kantor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Midland Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01133 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). The Defendants are buyers of unpaid debt.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. GLAMOUR BY ISSAM: "All Hair" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- All Hair and Beauty Products, Inc., and James Fugah, and other similarly situated individuals v. Issam J. Matar, Amy Matar, Cynthia G. Matar, Glamour by Issam and Exotica Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00501 (N.D. Ga., February 1, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act. This antitrust, conspiracy and fraud lawsuit is brought against the participants of two separate but related groups that are working together to defraud the public, involved in interstate commerce in the beauty business arena. The Plaintiffs alleged that the business group, comprising of Glamour by Issam and Exotica, Corp., and the personal group, comprising of Issam Matar, Cynthia Gabriella Matar Matar, and Amy Matar, agreed to fix prices, while conspiring to monopolize the market. Plaintiff All Hair and Beauty Products, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in the State of Georgia. Plaintiff James Fugah is a resident of the State of New York. Defendants diverted products, and engaged in group boycotts of nonparticipating competitors, all in a quest to fix, raise, lower, and stabilize the price, as they have wished or deemed appropriate for their business interests. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cecilia Perez-Matos, Esq. THE EAST COAST LAW FIRM 3904 N. Druid Hills Rd. #136 Decatur, GA 30033 Tel: (800) 515-7154 E-mail: cpm@eastcoastlawfirm.com GLOBAL POWER: Third Amended Complaint Filed in "Budde" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have filed their third amended complaint in the case, Budde v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc. A putative shareholder class action, captioned Budde v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. This action and another action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, and on July 29, 2015, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint that names the Company and three of our former officers as defendants. It alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of matters related to our restatement of certain financial periods and claims that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in certain public disclosures during the putative class period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of persons who acquired our stock between September 7, 2011 and May 6, 2015, monetary damages of "more than $200 million" on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Global Power said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that, "We intend to defend against this action. On June 26, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 23, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that motion. Defendants have until September 22, 2017 to file a reply in further support of their motion. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this action is not predictable with assurance. At this time, we are unable to predict the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this litigation, or any potential effect such may have on us or our business or operations." Global Power said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that, "On September 22, 2017, defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2017, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file an amended complaint. The court found that, with respect to each of the defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness. "On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, which the Company is currently evaluating with counsel." Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a leading provider of custom-engineered auxiliary equipment and maintenance support services for the global power generation industry. The company is based in Irving, Texas. GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Project Fi" ------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action claims Google, through its "Project Fi," charges mobile-phone customers for data they obtain through sources other than Google. Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Robert B. Carey, Esq. John M. DeStefano, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Jonathan Negretti, Esq. NEGRETTI & ASSOCIATES PLC 2415 E Camelback Rd, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 531-3911 Email: jonathan@negrettilaw.com KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Humana Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Otts, writing for WDRB, reports that Louisville-based Kindred Healthcare has provided "incomplete and misleading" information to investors about the proposed sale of the company to Humana Inc. and two private equity firms, according to a lawsuit that seeks to stop the merger in its tracks. Mazy Sehrgosha, a Kindred shareholder, filed the lawsuit in federal court in Delaware on Feb. 8, according to court records. Mr. Sehrgosha asks for class-action status to represent all Kindred stockholders and for a judge to block the sale, which the companies hope to close this year. A Kindred spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Kindred announced Dec. 19 that it had agreed to a buyout by Humana, also based in Louisville, and private equity firms TPG Capital and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe. The $9 per share price values the company at a little more than $780 million. Kindred, one of three Fortune 500 companies based in Louisville, would be split up and taken private in the deal. Its home-based care division would be folded into Humana, while the surviving Kindred Healthcare would be a specialty hospital company owned by the private equity firms. One big Kindred investor, New York-based Brigade Capital Management, has already said the deal price shortchanges Kindred stockholders. Kindred shareholders must vote on the proposed sale in a special meeting that hasn't been scheduled. No other information about Mr. Sehrgosha is disclosed in the lawsuit. He is the only plaintiff named. The lawsuit finds fault in a 300-page document Kindred filed, in which the company explains why its board of directors favors the sale and the alternatives the board evaluated. Kindred's so-called proxy statement failed to disclose key financial information about the company, according to the lawsuit. The $9-per-share price is also "inadequate," according to the lawsuit. [GN] HABIB AMERICAN BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Habib American Bank. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Habib American Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01119 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Habib American Bank is a full-service bank.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. HALLIBURTON CO: Bid to Drop "Magruder" Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that its request to dismiss a class action suit filed by Magruder remains pending. The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was commenced against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint was filed and served upon us in April 2003. In June 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint that included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. and our disclosures and reserves relating to our asbestos liability exposure. "In December 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit, without any admission of liability and subject to approval by the district court. During the second quarter of 2017, we paid approximately US$54 million of the US$100 million settlement fund, and our insurer paid the balance. On July 31, 2017, the district court issued final approval of the settlement. "The settlement resolves all pending cases other than Magruder v. Halliburton Co., et al. (the Magruder case). The allegations arise out of the same general events described above, but for a later class period, December 8, 2001 to May 28, 2002. There has been limited activity in the Magruder case. In March 2009, our motion to dismiss was granted, with leave to re-plead. In March 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in May 2012, we filed another motion to dismiss, which remains pending. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend." Halliburton Company provides a range of services and products to the upstream oil and natural gas industry worldwide. The Company was founded in 1919 and is based in Houston, Texas. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Former Salespeople Sue Over Commissions ------------------------------------------------------------ Jamie LaReau, writing for Automotive, News, reports that thirty- three former salespeople at Rick Hendrick Chevrolet Naples in Florida are suing Hendrick Automotive Group, alleging the nation's sixth-largest dealership group took actions that deliberately reduced their commissions. The group added "fictitious or wildly inflated" costs to the sales associates' deals, thereby manipulating the gross margins so as to pay smaller commissions, said allegations in an amended complaint filed Feb. 5 in 20th Judicial Circuit in Collier County, Fla., which includes Naples. The lawsuit, which seeks to be certified as a class action, said the damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, civil conspiracy and unpaid wages exceed $75,000. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Ben Yormak, told Automotive News a payout could be "well in excess" of $75,000. "We would be seeking dollar-for-dollar what each sales associate lost," said Mr. Yormak, president of Yormak Employment and Disability Law in Bonita Springs, Fla. "That means Hendrick and the dealership have to produce records that substantiate the payments that should have been made to each sales associate." If a judge certifies the lawsuit as a class action, 250 Hendrick sales associates in Florida could be included in it and thousands more if it includes all 102 Hendrick dealerships, Yormak said. Hendrick Automotive Group, of Charlotte, N.C., owned by Rick Hendrick, moved to dismiss the initial lawsuit. But at a hearing last month, a judge allowed Yormak to file an amended complaint instead. A Hendrick spokesman said that the company does not comment on pending litigation, but he added that Hendrick's lawyers believe the case is without merit and should be dismissed. Hendrick has 20 days to respond to the amended suit. The spokesman said lawyers are working on that response. 'Fast and loose' The lawsuit's allegations are "fairly straightforward," Mr. Yormak said. "The dealership is playing fast and loose with the gross-profit numbers." The lawsuit said the plaintiffs were to be paid 25 percent of the gross profit on new cars sold and 30 percent on used cars in a straight commission pay plan. The dealership guaranteed minimum payment of $200 per sale. Gross profit is "the difference between the sale price of the vehicle and the price the dealership pays to get the vehicle on the lot," the lawsuit said. But the dealership, "on the direction of Hendrick," consistently used "deceptive and deceitful" practices to charge "wildly inflated" costs against the profit margins, the lawsuit said. This was done to avoid paying the higher percentage commissions, instead paying just the $200 guaranteed minimum, the lawsuit said. Those costs included cleaning, detailing, adding equipment or parts and other services, all at "marked up prices designed to reduce the sales commissions" to the mandatory minimum, the lawsuit alleges. When the plaintiffs questioned dealership leadership about their pay, managers "refused to provide the plaintiffs an accounting of their deals," the lawsuit states. Something's wrong Rick Hendrick Chevrolet Naples was once Bob Taylor Chevrolet. Hendrick Automotive Group bought it in October 2015. Plaintiff Jack Lefevre, 72, worked for Taylor since 1977. He stayed on with Hendrick, but he said his commissions did not match what he had been promised. Likewise, plaintiff Brett Trekell, 47, told Automotive News that Hendrick owes "tens of thousands" of dollars in commissions to him and thousands to his colleagues. Mr. Trekell started at Rick Hendrick Chevrolet Naples in October 2015 as a sales associate and floor manager, training new sales staff. Before that, he worked at five dealerships in a 25-year career in sales and management jobs. He now is a sales associate at Airport Kia, in Naples, Fla. By early 2016, he and others started noticing something wasn't right with their pay. "One of the salesman sold three Chevy Tahoes at $65,000 each, yet he got paid $200 on each," said Mr. Trekell. A typical commission on such a vehicle should be at least $700, he said. The salesman asked him, "Why don't I have any gross on these?" he recalled. Shop bills Mr. Trekell and the others soon learned why: Exorbitant shop bills from the service department were being charged against the gross profit margins, he said. For example, the dealership charged $600 to $700 to wash and vacuum a car and $500 to $600 to tint the windows, he said. Such services, which should be a fraction of those figures, had shrunk the gross margins. The service department also charged $299 per new or used car to put nitrogen in every tire to stabilize tire pressure, said Mr. Trekell. There was just one problem: "The nitrogen machine had not worked for a year and a half," said Mr. Trekell. In June, Trekell said, the dealership replaced the nitrogen machine. Meanwhile, to make up for the lower commissions, managers offered volume bonuses, said Mr. Trekell, paying $500 for 15 cars sold and $1,000 for 20 cars sold per month. But the store rotated so many salespeople that it was nearly impossible to work enough to hit the targets, he said. The draw Messrs. Trekell and Lefevre were terminated on June 29. In fact, all the plaintiffs had either resigned or were terminated by that date, said Mr. Yormak. Mr. Trekell was given no explanation for his termination, he said. Mr. Lefevre was told he owed Hendrick about $8,000 in back draws. A back-draw results when a dealership pays an employee before they make any sales. If the employee fails to make sufficient sales to cover that advance, he or she must pay back the difference to the dealership. But because Hendrick made "almost every deal a minimum deal, the salesmen are never able to cover the monthly draw," said Mr. Lefevre. Yormak is confident the case will proceed to class action, saying, "We feel all the prerequisites are there to be certified as class action. We feel this is exactly what goes on at every dealership because every dealership is Hendrick-controlled." No further court dates have been set, said a court clerk in Collier County, Fla. Mr. Yormak said when Hendrick is forced to reveal its accounting, "You will see that all the allegations are true. How much does it cost to detail a car? $30? I mean, c'mon," Mr. Yormak said. "We just want what's fair. These sales associates signed a contract expecting to be paid by what was in those terms and not to be deceived by their employers." [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Jones Day Lawyers Examine Class Decertification -------------------------------------------------------------- Implications of the Ninth Circuit's Latest Ruling on Multinational Consumer Protection Class Actions By Michael McCauley, Esq. -- msmccauley@jonesday.com -- and Alexandra Fries, Esq. -- afries@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day, Los Angeles The Ninth Circuit recently issued a ruling in a nationwide class action that may have significant implications for certifying class actions. In In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, No. 15-56014 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), the Ninth Circuit set aside a $210 million nationwide class settlement because the district court abused its discretion in certifying a settlement class without first rigorously analyzing the requirements for certification. Id. at 60. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not sufficiently analyze whether the predominance element for class certification was satisfied in light of material differences in the applicable state laws and could not substitute the fairness hearing for this analysis. Id. at 60. Counsel litigating class actions must consider this ruling in shaping case strategy. The In re Hyundai plaintiffs alleged that Hyundai and Kia overstated the fuel efficiency of certain vehicles, which prompted a 2011 EPA investigation into Hyundai's and Kia's fuel efficiency test procedures. Id. at 34. The district court issued a tentative decision holding that class certification was improper, finding that Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), foreclosed certification "where California law is applied to out-of state consumers. . . ." Id. at 38. Applying the California governmental interest test for resolving choice of law issues, the district court found there were material differences in the applicable state consumer protection laws throughout the country (particularly as to scienter requirements and remedies), the other states had legitimate interests in applying their own laws, and those interests would be more impaired if the court applied California law to the out- of-state consumers. Id. A few months after this tentative ruling, and after the parties reached a settlement agreeing to certify a nationwide class, plaintiff asked the court to certify a nationwide settlement class including all current and former owners and lessees of certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles on or before November 2, 2012. Id. at 40. Several putative class members objected to the settlement, arguing, among other things, that Virginia consumer protection law, not California consumer law, applied. Id. at 45. In a later tentative ruling, however, the district court determined that an extensive choice of law analysis was unwarranted in the settlement context because it could address variations in state law at the fairness hearing. Id. at 46. The district court ultimately approved the settlement and failed to resolve the state choice-of-law issues that it had acknowledged in its tentative order denying class certification. Id. at 47. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the district court. The court determined that the district court erred by not analyzing choice-of-law issues or ensuring that Rule 23's other prerequisites were satisfied when certifying the settlement class. Id. at 50. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that under Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997), "district courts must give 'undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context' to scrutinize proposed settlement classes." Id. at 51. The Ninth Circuit explained that the district court's tentative decision put the parties on notice that the district court would deny certification. Class counsel was thus deprived of the ability to "use the threat of litigation to press for a better offer" and the court was deprived of the "benefit of adversarial investigation." Id. at 51. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court could not resolve these certification issues at a fairness hearing. Judge Nguyen issued a scathing dissent. She found that Rule 23's predominance inquiry was met and the majority improperly "place[d] the burden on the district court or class counsel to extensively canvass every state's laws and determine that none other than California's apply." Id. at 64. She explained that the majority opinion conflicted with well-established law that "a nationwide class action cannot be decertified simply because there are 'differences between state consumer protection laws.'" Id. at 62. When it comes to predominance, "more important questions apt to drive the resolution of the litigation and are given more weight[.]" Id. Judge Nguyen also explained that the objectors failed to argue, much less meet their burden to show, that law from any state other than California applied. The law is clear, Judge Nguyen found, that the proponent of class certification does not have the burden to show that California law applies. Id. at 70. Judge Nguyen concluded that the majority did not properly apply California's choice of law rules and created inconsistencies "the Erie doctrine is designed to combat." Id. Potential Lessons The Ninth Circuit's decision in In re Hyundai may make the settlement of certain nationwide class actions more complex and less predictable. The Supreme Court held in Amchem that a district court must conduct a rigorous choice of law analysis when certifying a settlement class. Nevertheless, in practice district courts often take a more lenient approach to class certification in the settlement context. Counsel typically could assume the district court would likely certify the settlement class and approve the settlement with little inquiry. The In re Hyundai decision, however, highlights that counsel proceeds at his or her own peril under this assumption. Counsel should be prepared to show how each of the requirements for class certification is satisfied, even at the settlement stage. Recognizing that this showing will be required will affect overall case strategy, including what discovery is taken, what arguments are made to the court concerning class certification, and when those arguments are made. The In re Hyundai decision also highlights how important variations in state law can be to class certification, even outside the settlement context. Cases in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have long held that material differences in state law can be fatal to class certification. See, e.g., Mazza, 666 F.3d at 596; Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1996); Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 947 (6th Cir. 2011). In re Hyundai serves as a stark reminder that counsel litigating nationwide putative class actions must account for any differences in state laws and, depending on what side they are on, explain why those differences do or do not preclude class certification. Any increased focus on these variations in state law may also affect how classes are defined and whether subclasses are used. In Judge Nguyen's dissenting view, the In re Hyundai decision "deals a major blow to multistate class actions" by making them harder to certify and harder to settle. Id. at 61. Whether Judge Nguyen is right remains to be seen. But in the meantime, the In re Hyundai decision serves as a reminder to counsel litigating nationwide class actions of the importance of differences in state law and that nothing should be taken for granted at the settlement stage. * * * Michael McCauley is a partner in Jones Day's Los Angeles office. He is a trial lawyer who has served as lead trial and arbitration counsel for Fortune 500 companies and has led the defense of numerous nationwide consumer class actions in the automotive, securities, healthcare and other industries. Alexandra Fries is an associate in Jones Day's Los Angeles office. She focuses her practice on commercial litigation, with a strong emphasis on class actions, securities, and corporate governance issues. The views and opinions set forth herein are the personal views or opinions of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect views or opinions of the law firm with which they are associated. HY'S LIVERY: "Belgada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------- Mehdi Belgada, Hormoz Akhundzadeh, and Adaniel Dziekan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Hy's Livery Service, Inc., Robert Levine, Matthew Levine, and Shelley Levine, Case No. 3:18-cv-00177 (D. Conn., January 31, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage Act. The Plaintiffs worked as chauffeurs for the Defendants in Connecticut. Defendants own and operate an airport limo service. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 522-8888 Fax: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com INSPERITY INC: Retirement Plan Class Action Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. still defends itself against the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and the third-party discretionary trustee of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan participants. The suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent investment choices. The parties filed a stipulation concerning class certification that defined the class as "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30, 2017." In November 2017, the court approved the class certification stipulation. The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements." Insperity, Inc., provides an array of human resources ("HR") and business solutions designed to help improve business performance. J.L.C. JEWELERS: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.L.C. Jewelers LTD. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.L.C. Jewelers LTD. doing business as: Cellini Jewelers, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01607 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). J.L.C. Jewelers LTD. is a Jewelry Stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11212 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Email: dan@cml.legal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rochester Drug Files Suit in Pa. Over Remicade ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00303-JCJ (E.D. Penn., January 24, 2018), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful multifaceted scheme to block biosimilar competition to Remicade through a web of exclusive dealing contracts. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company located at 1 J&J Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08933. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sorensen, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net - and Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net - and - Peter R. Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. Neil Clark, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com nclark@faruqilaw.com - and - Barry Taus, Esq. Archana Tamoshunas, Esq. Miles Greaves, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (646) 873-7654 E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com atamoshunas@tcllaw.com mgreaves@tcllaw.com KINDER MORGAN: UPRR Easements and Related Lawsuits Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that subsidiary SFPP, L.P. continues to face legal actions related to Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR). The Company said, "SFPP and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) have engaged in litigation since 2004 to determine both the extent, if any, to which rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted, and the circumstances and conditions under which SFPP must pay to relocate its pipeline within the UPRR rights-of-way. In July 2017, UPRR and SFPP reached a confidential settlement of both the rental and relocation litigation. The amount paid by SFPP to settle the rental litigation was within the right-of-way liability previously recorded by SFPP, and the parties generally agreed to share and allocate the cost of future potential relocations. Although the cost sharing mechanism in the settlement is expected to reduce the cost of future relocations, SFPP does not know UPRR's plans for projects or other activities that would cause pipeline relocations such that it is difficult to quantify the cost of future potential relocations. Such costs could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, and dividends to our shareholders. "A purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in a U.S. District Court in California by private landowners who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP. Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" alleging that the defendants occupation and use of the subsurface real property was improper. Plaintiffs' motions for class certification were denied by the federal courts in Arizona and California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' request for interlocutory review of the decisions on class certification. The New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits have been stayed. An additional suit was filed in a U.S. District Court in Arizona by private landowners seeking recovery for claims substantially the same as those made in the purported class actions. SFPP views the litigation involving private landowners as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiff landowners; as such, we expect the lawsuits will be resolved on terms that are not material to KMI's results of operations, cash flows or dividends to shareholders." Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. KINDER MORGAN: Appeal from "Brinckerhoff" Suit Dismissal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Peter Brinckerhoff's appeal from the court order dismissing his purported class action suit against the Company remains pending. In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Peter Brinckerhoff, a former EPB unitholder on behalf of a class of former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to challenge the US$9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of KMI as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby KMI acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR, and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own. The suit alleges that the merger consideration did not sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and which the present suit now alleges were collectively worth as much as US$700 million. The suit claims that the alleged failure to obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The suit also asserts claims against KMI and certain individual defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership agreement. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. Brinckerhoff filed a notice to appeal the dismissal. In November 2017, counsel for Brinckerhoff filed a separate lawsuit against KMEP and KMI seeking to recover up to US$44 million in attorneys' fees allegedly incurred in connection with the assertion of derivative claims that Brinckerhoff lost standing to pursue. Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit. The Company said, "We continue to believe that both the merger and the drop down transactions were appropriate and in the best interests of EPB, and we intend to continue to defend these lawsuits vigorously." Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. MDL 2804: El Dorado Reverses Decision to Join Opioid Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Tia Lyons, writing for El Dorado News-Times, reports that as a former law enforcement officer and director of the 13th Judicial Drug Task Force, El Dorado Alderman Mike Rice remembers the crestfallen look that overtook the faces of parents when he had the unfortunate task of interviewing them after their child had died of a drug overdose. "I'll never forget that look," he said. It was a look that befell his own face in May 2016 when, at 26 years old, his daughter Mary Lou succumbed to an opioid addiction that had consumed her and her family since she was 14 years old. "I was a career law enforcement officer working in narcotics and my daughter had this issue," he said, his voice overcome with emotion. Mr. Rice first publicly shared the testimony about his loss during an El Dorado City Council meeting on Jan. 18. The council decided then not to participate in efforts by the state to pursue legal action against pharmaceutical companies in the fight against the opioid abuse crisis that is ravaging Arkansas and the U.S. Mr. Rice was one of six aldermen who voted against a request to authorize Mayor Frank Hash to sign an engagement letter outlining plans by a litigation team representing the Arkansas Municipal League and municipalities around the state to investigate and prosecute claims against companies and other parties that manufacture and/or distribute opioid medications. He, along with several other council members, has since reversed his stance on the issue. After hearing from a local family who is dealing with the devastation of opioid abuse, Alderman Billy Blann, who voted 'no' on Jan. 18, said he had experienced a change of heart and consciousness and asked that the issue be placed on the agenda for the council's regular meeting on Feb. 8. Following a lengthy debate and words of support by audience member Chuck Hays, the council took another vote to join with the AML and other municipalities around the state. The result was a 5 - 3 poll in favor of the measure. Aldermen Vance Williamson, Judy Ward and Dianne Hammond voted 'no'. 'Very complex problem' "I had not seen the ugly end of this. It had not affected my family," Mr. Blann said. Following the Jan. 18 council meeting, Mr. Blann said he had researched the matter further and had learned more about the wide-reaching effects of the problem of opioid abuse in Arkansas and across the nation. "I was not aware of the full extent -- how many pills were being prescribed, how they are affecting a lot of people . . . and there could be a monetary result on this and I'd hate to see El Dorado miss out on that," Mr. Blann said. He invited Mr. Hays to speak to the council and Mr. Hays said the issue has personally touched his family. Hays referred to the Jan. 18 council meeting, saying that some city officials felt that opioid abuse is not an issue locally. "We'll have to agree to disagree," he said. "Will a lawsuit change anything? I think it will. I think we have to get the attention of the opioid drug companies and shed a lot of light on this issue in the national press." He said he had also spoken with the AML about the matter and he suggested that city officials speak with the 13th Judicial Prosecuting Attorney's Office "to see what opioids do to our court system." Mr. Hays also referred to a relative who works with Agape House, which serves children in Union County who can't live in their homes due to abuse, neglect and other life issues, many of which stem from drug abuse. Mayor Frank Hash previously said that most mayors around the state had signed the letter of engagement with the municipal league. "This lawsuit is going to happen with or without us. It's just a small part of the solution. There's got to be a lot of changes made on different levels," Mr. Hays said. "Tell us, all of us in this room, what we need to do to give you a positive vote." Reiterating comments he made last month, Alderman Vance Williamson said he did not favor pursuing legal action against pharmaceutical companies and distributers. "What I don't follow is that pharmaceutical manufacturers, at the end of the day, are not responsible for dealing out excess prescriptions," Mr. Williamson said. "What I can't follow is how you're trying to hold them responsible for what physicians are doing. It's well beyond their control." Mr. Hays argued that drug companies are culpable because they were not forthcoming with the public about the addictive qualities of opioid-based medications. "I sympathize with folks who are dealing with this, but I think this suit is aimed at the wrong people," Mr. Williamson responded. In Arkansas, the drug prescription rate is 114 per 100 people and in Union County, the rate is 131.5 per 100 people, which is more than double the national average. Hash pointed to comments Rice previously made, saying that many people who are addicted to prescription medications often turn to heroin, also an opioid, when they can't access prescription medication. Alderman Willie McGhee referred to the prescription rates that have been reported in Union County and Arkansas, saying, "If your signature saves one life, then it was worth it. I understand there's misuse, but a lot of people who started taking these pills did so for pain. They didn't start out as addicts." Mr. McGhee said that he has recently had surgeries and he was also prescribed opioid-based pain pills, adding that he opted for over-the-counter medication. He also acknowledged that the problem has many layers and the council could "work it from the top down instead of the bottom up" by joining the efforts of the Arkansas Municipal League. 'There is a cost' For Mr. Rice, the issue is as emotional as it is complex. As head of the 13th Judicial Drug Task Force, he saw firsthand the amount of resources that went into tackling illegal drug activity from a law-enforcement standpoint. "I had a budget that included money for so many man-hours, so much equipment, so much 'buy' money, things you had to do to build a case. There is a cost," he said. In response to comments by Williamson, Mr. Rice said drug companies ship "thousands" of pills to other countries. "And they're shipped right back here through mail order and other means," he said. "You can load up truckloads of pills and bring them back here. The doctors don't make the pills." Mr. Rice said the drug task force worked to bust operations in which area drug dealers were rounding up addicts and arranging visits to "unscrupulous doctors" in Texas. "They would go in and say, 'My back hurts,' and get all these prescriptions written and they were bringing back large quantities of narcotics to sell here," he said. Mr. Rice opened up about other front-line experience he has had with drug addiction. His daughter Mary Lou was living in New Orleans at the time of her death. Mr. Rice said he had watched her battle drug addiction for more than a decade and had tried feverishly to help her beat it. He had seen her through stints in rehabilitation programs and sober living facilities. "She would be clean for six, seven months to a year, but it wouldn't last," he said. When his phone rang nearly two years ago and he saw the familiar "504" area code from New Orleans police, he immediately knew the news wasn't good. "I didn't answer it. I said a prayer and then I hit the recall button," he said. A Mardi Gras parade was held on Feb. 11 in Mary Lou's honor. It began at 2:23 p.m. (her birthday) and circled the Union County Courthouse from Jefferson Avenue to Washington Avenue and back to Rice's restaurant, Fayray's on Elm Street. A Gumbo Cook-Off was held, recognizing Mary Lou's favorite food and the event helped to benefit UCAPS. "Mary Lou was big on rescuing dogs," Mr. Rice shared. While Mr. Rice said there isn't a simple solution to the opioid problem, he said education and awareness are needed, along with other action, such as the AML effort. He also said Union County Drug Court has had measurable success with drug addiction. "It does not fix everybody, but it's helped a lot of people," Mr. Rice said. By speaking publicly about Mary Lou and voting in favor of a Class Action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Rice said he hopes he is taking the right steps toward helping others and raising awareness about the devastation of drug addiction. "It seems like when it happens, parents want to avoid it and say, 'It can't happen to me,'" he said. "I hope we can figure out a way to prevent the problem. I'm a member of a very small club that I don't want other people to become a member of and that's losing a child." [GN] METLIFE INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 6, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against MetLife Inc. (:MET), if they purchased the Company's securities between February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased securities of MetLife and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/-met/to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 6, 2018. About the Lawsuit MetLife and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On January 29, 2018, MetLife disclosed "a material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting" that caused reserves to be reduced incorrectly relating to outstanding payouts for annuity and pension recipients and that its Q4 earnings release was postponed, with reserves expected to increase by $525 million to $575 million, Q4 earnings to decrease by $135 million to $165 million, and 2017 profits cut by $165 million to $195 million. MetLife also revealed a SEC investigation into the outstanding pension payments matter. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Tel: 1-877-515-1850 206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] METLIFE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of MetLife, Inc. ("MetLife") (NYSE:MET) between February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/metlife-inc?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: (1) MetLife's practices and procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and pension payments were inadequate; (2) MetLife had inadequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about MetLife's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in MetLife you have until April 6, 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 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] METROPOLITAN LIFE: Financial-Services Reps File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Financial-services reps filed a class action against Metropolitan Life Insurance, claiming it takes illegal deductions, fails to reimburse business expenses, and violates other labor laws, in Alameda County Court. Attorney for Plaintiffs: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Tel: 619.239.4599 Fax: 619.234.4599 -- and -- Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.545.4762 Fax: 212.545.4653 -- and -- John M. Kelson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KELSON 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: 510.465.1326 Fax: 510.465.0871 -- and -- Jerry K. Cimmet, Esq. Attorney at Law 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Tel: 650.866.4700 MIZUHOD BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Bitcoins Currency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Pearce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mizuhod Bank, LTD. and Mark Karpeles, Case No. 2:18-cv-00306-RK (E.D. Penn., January 24, 2018), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining, protecting, accounting for, and safeguarding the Plaintiff's and the Mt. Gox Class's bitcoins and Fiat Currency within Mt. Cox's control and failure to implement reasonable accounting procedures or to segregate user accounts from the operational funds, as well as failure to correct security bugs or other vulnerabilities on the Exchange. Mizuhod Bank, LTD. is a Japanese financial institution with its principal headquarters located at 1-3-3, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan 100-8210. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-1130 Facsimile: (215) 875-7733 - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabania@edelson.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: CFTC Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Mondelez International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a class action lawsuit against Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group is still in discovery. The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its investigation. "On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for- physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or US$1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and US$140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees. "In December 2015, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now in discovery. "Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. "In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss, and the parties are now in discovery. "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action." Mondelez International manufactures and markets primarily snack food products, including biscuits (cookies, crackers and salted snacks), chocolate, gum & candy and various cheese & grocery products, as well as powdered beverage products. NAVIENT CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Putative Class Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- An amended and restated complaint filed against Navient Corporation remains pending, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the distribution period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. The Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss on September 6, 2017 and dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a further amended and restated complaint in December 2017. The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. NAVIENT CORP: "Pope" and "Gross" Stockholder Class Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation still faces two putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain Navient stock investors, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the distribution period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. During the fourth quarter of 2017, Navient Corporation and certain Navient officers were named in two putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock entitled Pope v. Navient Corporation, et al and Gross v. Navient Corporation, et al. The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against these allegations. NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in "Ubaldi" and "Blyden" Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the cases, Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al. and Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation, et al., are awaiting Court approval of a settlement. On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative class action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed prior to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al. The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees that were proportional to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law and that Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily interest on private educational loans. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include usury claims under California state law and to seek restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the putative class and other relief. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle that would resolve the Ubaldi matter, as well as the related lawsuit of Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation, et al. Navient said "While we cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to finalize the proposed settlement on terms that are acceptable to the Company or if the Court will ultimately approve the proposed settlement, we do not believe that the financial impact of the final settlement, if any, will be material." The Company agreed to settle these matters to avoid the burden, expense, risk, and uncertainty of continued litigation. A reserve was established for this matter as of December 31, 2016. Plaintiffs filed on September 25, 2017, an Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. This motion awaits action by the Court. Navient Corporation is a provider of asset management and business processing solutions for education, health care, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company helps its clients and millions of Americans achieve financial success through services and support. Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and other locations. NAVIENT CORP: Expects Amended Complaint in Lord Abbett Funds Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated amended complaint is expected to be filed in early 2018 in the consolidated class action lawsuit led by Lord Abbett Funds, Navient Corporation said a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit, and filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in November 2016. On September 6, 2017 the Court granted the Navient defendants motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend until November 5, Navient said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. Navient said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court on November 17, 2017. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit and anticipate filing their motion to dismiss prior to the applicable deadline. Additionally, two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "These cases have been consolidated and we anticipate a consolidated amended complaint will be filed in early 2018. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself," Navient said. Navient Corporation is a provider of asset management and business processing solutions for education, health care, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company helps its clients and millions of Americans achieve financial success through services and support. Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and other locations. NAVIENT CORP: Court Approves Settlement in "Johnson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Court has approved the settlement in the case, Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws. One of these putative class action suits is Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"). On May 4, 2015, Randy Johnson filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). During the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and, in December 2016, filed a Motion to Approve the Class Action Settlement with the Court. The Court approved the settlement in July 2017. NSI denied all claims asserted, but agreed to settle the case to avoid the burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continued litigation. Navient Corporation is a provider of asset management and business processing solutions for education, health care, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company helps its clients and millions of Americans achieve financial success through services and support. Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and other locations. NCAA: Judge Set to Hear Summary Judgment Motions ------------------------------------------------ John Thelin, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that now that the football season is over, college sports fans have several options. They can argue about whether next year the University of Alabama will defend its 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship title. Or they can turn to watching some of the more than 50 National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball games televised each week. These obvious choices do not exhaust the possibilities for excitement, because the real game is going to be played off the court and in court. That's because U.S. District Court judge Claudia Wilken will be holding 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. According to a recent article in Time magazine by Sean Gregory, "This could be the last college football championship game with unpaid players." Representatives for college players are confident that, within the coming year, college athletes will be able to receive payment beyond the current limits of a grant in aid plus cost of living adjusted expenses. And even though almost 69 percent of respondents surveyed by the NCAA last year expressed opposition to paying college athletes, Gregory suggests that today avid college sports fans may have little problem with such an innovation. Advocates for paying college players justify their cause and case on the grounds that since the NCAA, major conferences, big-time college sports programs and their high-profile coaches make millions of dollars from college sports, the amateur athletes who play the college games that attract spectators deserve to "share in the bounty." That may be good news for student athletes who think they are financially exploited. Less clear is how the other principle participant -- the college athletics department -- will fare under the new arrangements. If college athletes are allowed to be paid salaries, what will the impact be on intercollegiate athletics programs' budgets and operations? How will college athletic directors pay for "play for pay"? Most likely, no college athletics director will relish the new professionalization, because paying salaries to players will increase program expenditures without necessarily increasing revenues. But if the court does approve player payment, a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries. Others will mimic as they try to keep up but eventually will fall short in trying to outbid Auburn University, Florida State, the University of Southern California or the University of Texas in the college player arms race. Even before factoring in the added expenses that might come from the anticipated court ruling, the important prequel is that now only about 20 college athletics programs consistently operate in the black, even though the traditional justification for big-time football is that it serves as the golden goose to subsidize the other "nonrevenue" sports. More surprising is that many NCAA Division I football programs lose money. With the added expense of paying some athletes salaries, most programs will go deeper in debt. The harsh reality is that they will still fall behind as the gap in the competition for star athletes will widen, with the Bowl Championship Series conference members gaining a pronounced edge. This syndrome of the rich getting richer among big-time college sports programs is not surprising. Less obvious is that with player payroll expenses, even many of the high-profile, commercially successful college sports programs will face unexpected consequences that will strain their annual operating budgets. For example, when an athletics department pays a salary instead of providing a grant in aid, it faces substantial new expenses for no gain in services. It must pay federal taxes for Medicare and Social Security, matching the dollar amount paid by the employee. If, for example, a player received a salary of about $140,000, the employer and employee each would pay about $9,100 per year for these two federal taxes. Athletic departments pay another price if they shift from scholarships to salaries. When player compensation was in the form of a grant in aid, an athletics department could rely on the university financial aid to transfer a Pell Grant worth up to about $5,000 per year to a player's package if the student athlete had demonstrated financial need. So if 100 grant-in-aid recipients were receiving Pell Grants, that might save the athletic department $500,000 per year in fulfilling their obligations on funding financial aid packages. Under the new rules, that potential subsidy would evaporate. A crucial question is whether any of the court's rulings that allow a college to pay players will jeopardize a college sports program's status as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Some prominent tax law scholars such as John D. Colombo of the University of Illinois have argued that it would be difficult and unlikely for a college sports program to forfeit this legal status. Perhaps so. But the recent trends in the court cases suggest one vulnerable point where paying salaries to student athletes could jeopardize the customary federal tax-exempt status. To qualify for 501(c)3 status, an educational activity must also be a charitable activity. As long as athletic programs and their host corporations such as the state university athletic association or the state university athletic foundation use their revenues to pay for scholarships, the charitable status of the overall athletics program probably is safe. Shifting, however, to paying salaries to student athletes goes counter to an essential condition because it would be hard to define a salary as a charitable expense. Why is this important? If a college sports program department or athletics association forfeits its tax-exempt status, it may have new, big expenses from which it was spared under the student aid model. Those could include state and local categories of taxes, such as property taxes. There are already cases whereby a local government has pressed a major state university to explain why a golf course or other real estate not used for educational purposes that the institution owned should qualify as an educational and charitable site. With professional athletes on the payroll, such local and state scrutiny of land used for sports entertainment provided by hired professionals will increase. One possible strategy to reduce this potential tax exposure would be for athletic directors to decide to pay salaries only to student athletes for selected sports. Most likely, that would include football, men's basketball, women's basketball and a few others such as hockey at a handful of universities. All other sports might be left in their current, familiar grant-in-aid category. The risk is that paying salaries to student athletes in a few high-profile sports will open the door to Title IX compliance problems, especially if comparable compensation is not given regardless of gender. This concern is not outlandish, because a football squad with an allotment of 65 players is a large number, as already shown in the problems athletic directors have in gaining parity for women's sports in paying for grants in aid. Those added expenses will take place just as the new federal tax reform bill passed in December 2017 takes effect, requiring colleges and other nonprofits to pay an excise tax for employee salaries surpassing $1 million per year . That measure will have disproportionate consequences for athletics programs where coach and athletic director salaries are high. The obvious targets are head coaches who can make as much as $7 million or more a year. Yet in recent years, the potential impact has extended to a wider group, as some assistant coaches make over $1 million per year. The new tax legislation also places greater limits on tax deductions for donors who give to athletics programs and earn the right to purchase season tickets to games. Furthermore, in some states, legislators are filing bills that would require university governing boards to review big sponsorship and endorsement deals with Adidas or other sports merchandising companies, which can be as high as $165 million over 10 years. College sports programs will still enjoy great exemptions and benefits but will face increasing scrutiny and constraints. Expenses will continue to rise, but revenues will be subject to more taxes. Courts and Congress are increasingly, albeit reluctantly, acknowledging the commercial character of the NCAA and its sponsored sports. On June 4, 2015 in the case of Javon Marshall, et al., v. ESPN, et al., federal district Judge Kevin H. Sharp wrote, "College basketball and football, particularly at the Division I and FBS [Football Bowl Subdivision] levels, is a big business. Of that there can be little doubt." Nor is there much doubt that the financing of big-time college sports is entering a new, problematic period of adjustment due to the pressures and precedents pointing toward increased student athlete compensation, combined with some signs of congressional concerns about commercialism and colleges. If college players can be paid, how much will they be paid? Even though advocates of paying student athletes invoke the rhetoric of "fair market value," it's unlikely that new court rulings will open the floodgate to allow uncapped salaries for college athletes. A more probable scenario is that the courts will designate the conference as the crucial collective unit that works with its member universities to set ceilings and floors on player salaries. Conferences such as the Ivy League will probably not participate in the added commercialization of paying salaries to athletes. The Power Five Conferences will be likely participants. Between those two extremes, for other Division I conferences, athletic directors will pay a heavy price if they opt to pay players. After the euphoria of achieving partial gains in financial equity by allowing salaries for hardworking student athletes passes, the sobering reality is that even big-time college sports programs will be stretched in their budgets and conflicted in reconciling payment of student athletes with their educational mission. [GN] NESTLE USA: Must Face Class Action Over Raisinets, Judge Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that echoing a similar ruling from last summer involving Mike and Ike and Hot Tamales, a federal judge in Missouri denied Nestle's request to throw out a class action accusing it of selling nearly half empty boxes of Raisinets. NQ MOBILE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NQ Mobile Inc. (NYSE:NQ) from March 30, 2017 through February 6, 2018, inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for NQ Mobile investors under the federal securities laws. To join the NQ Mobile class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1285.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) NQ Mobile failed to disclose related party transactions involving the Transaction between NQ Mobile and Tongfang; (2) due to the related parties involved in the Transaction, NQ Mobile agreed to consideration in the form of a note with a high likelihood of default; (3) Defendant Shi's interest in the Transaction was not fully disclosed; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about NQ Mobile's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 11, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1285.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Daniel Sadeh, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com dsadeh@rosenlegal.com [GN] OAKHURST DAIRY: To Pay Workers $5MM Because of Missing Comma ------------------------------------------------------------ Allen Cone, writing for UPI, reports that a dairy in Maine has settled a class-action suit to pay 127 workers $5 million in owed overtime pay because of a missing Oxford comma in state law. Portland's Oakhurst Dairy and the workers reached a settlement nearly a year after a federal appeals court decision. On March 13, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled 3-0 that workers were entitled to up to $10 million in overtime back pay. The reason was a missing Oxford comma -- the final comma used before a conjunction -- in state law. In this case, the conjunction was the word "or." Judge David Barron wrote at the beginning of his 29-page ruling: "For want of a comma, we have this case." No Oxford comma was used in a statute listing of conditions when overtime pay does not apply: "...marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of" products. Without the comma, the drivers argued that it reads as a single act, and since they didn't actually do any packing, they shouldn't have been exempt from overtime pay. The 127 drivers filed a class-action suit in 2014. In the settlement, Oakhurst did not admit to wrongdoing but believed further litigation would be protracted and expensive. The settlement was filed February 8 in federal court and must be approved by a federal judge before it goes into effect. The five drivers who led the suit, called the "named plaintiffs," will receive $50,000 each from the settlement fund. Other drivers will have to file claims to get a share of the fund, and will be paid a minimum of $100 or the amount of overtime pay they were owed, based on their work records from May 2008 until August 2012. In early 2014, the dairy was sold to a farmers cooperative by the Maine family that had owned it for 93 years. After the appeals court ruling edited this exemption, the Maine Legislature replaced the punctuation with semicolons. [GN] OHANA MILITARY: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City Residential Management, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's January 10, 2018 order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit styled Cara Barber, et al. v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv- 00217-HG-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants did not disclose that pesticides had been confirmed in the soil at Marine Corps Base Hawaii and required remediation, and that the Defendants did not follow their own soil remediation plan and their construction efforts exposed the Plaintiffs to visible dust at Marine Corps Base Hawaii while they were tenants in the Defendants' housing. The appellate case is captioned as Cara Barber, et al. v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-15149, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening brief and excerpts of record were due by February 22, 2018; -- Answering brief is due March 22, 2018, or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and -- Optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA STREETER, KATIE ECKROTH, BOB BARBER, TIM JONES and RYAN ECKROTH, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Bradford F.K. Bliss, Esq. LYONS, BRANDT, COOK & HIRAMATSU 841 Bishop Street 1818 Davies Pacific Center Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-7030 E-mail: bbliss@lbchlaw.com - and - Terry Revere, Esq. REVERE AND ASSOCIATES, LLLC 970 N. Kalaheo Avenue, Suite A301 Kailua, HI 96734 Telephone: (808) 791-9550 E-mail: terry@revereandassociates.com - and - Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq. SMITH LAW 970 N. Kalaheo, Suite A301 Kailua, HI 96734 Telephone: (808) 791-9555 E-mail: kyle@lhsshawaii.com Defendants-Appellants OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, and FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., are represented by: Lisa Woods Munger, Esq. Christine A. Terada, Esq. GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL LLP 999 Bishop Street First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 547-5600 E-mail: lmunger@goodsill.com cterada@goodsill.com - and - Randall C. Whattoff, Esq. COX FRICKE LLP 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 585-9440 E-mail: rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "B.R." Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants County of Orange and Myeshia Hammond filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled B. R. v. County of Orange, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff B.R., a minor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this civil rights class action against the Defendants in connection with the County's alleged warrantless removals of children from their parent's custody. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class of "[a]ll natural persons, who, as minors, were seized from their parents or legal guardians' care and/or custody, without a removal warrant, by the County of Orange from April 20, 1994 through December 31, 2013, and where the primary removal reason in the CWS/CMS database is 'neglect.'" The appellate case is captioned as B. R. v. County of Orange, et al., Case No. 18-80012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent B. R., a minor, and all others similarly situated, by and through his Guardian ad litem, Jill Randall, is represented by: Shawn Allen McMillan, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, A.P.C. 4955 Via Lapiz San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 646-0069 Facsimile: (858) 746-5283 E-mail: attyshawn@netscape.net Defendants-Petitioners COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity, and MYESHIA HAMMOND, in her personal capacity, together with all other similarly situated, are represented by: Zachary M. Schwartz, Esq. William L. Haluck, Esq. KOELLER, NEBEKER, CARLSON & HALUCK LLP 3 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 864-3400 E-mail: zachary.schwartz@knchlaw.com haluck@knchlaw.com PARKWAY INC: "Price" and "Scarantino" Merger Suits Nixed -------------------------------------------------------- The case, Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:17-cv- 02441 (S.D. Tex.), was terminated Nov. 24, 2017. The case, Price v. Parkway, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02367 (S.D. Tex.) was terminated on Dec. 13, 2017. Parkway, Inc. said in a September Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing two purported federal securities class action suits captioned as Price v. Parkway, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-2367 and Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv- 02441. Two purported federal securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the "Lawsuits") have been filed against the Company and each of the members of the Board of Directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The first case, Price v. Parkway, Inc., et al., (Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-2367), was filed on August 2, 2017; and the second case, Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-02441), was filed on August 9, 2017, and also names the Company LP, CPPIB and the CPPIB Parties as defendants. Each lawsuit, which purports to have been brought on behalf of all holders of the Company's common stock, generally alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on July 27, 2017 failed to disclose allegedly material information about the pending merger transactions. Each complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the stockholder vote on the proposed merger at the Special Meeting or consummating the mergers contemplated by the Merger Agreement unless and until the Company discloses the allegedly omitted information. Each complaint also seeks damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omission, as well as related attorneys' fees and expenses. The Parkway Parties, CPPIB and the CPPIB Parties continue to believe that all allegations in the complaints are without merit, and further believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws. However, the Company wishes to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger transaction solely for the purpose of mooting the allegations contained in the Lawsuits and avoiding the expense and burden of litigation. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the supplemental disclosures. In an October 12 Form 8-K filing, Parkway announced the completion of the Agreement and Plan of Merger. Parkway is an independent, publicly traded, self-managed real estate investment trust that owns and operates office properties located in submarkets in Houston, Texas. PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2017, that an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV- 316-JHP-TLW, is pending. On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding"). The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio. Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding leases. On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs. The motion remains pending. On April 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all three of Plaintiffs' motions. On December 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending as of the effective date of this response. Petro River said "There is no specific timeline by which the Court of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue to vigorously defend its interest in this matter." Petro River Oil Corp. is an independent energy company focused on the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets with low discovery and development costs. The Company is currently focused on moving forward with drilling wells on several of its properties owned directly and indirectly through its interest in Horizon Energy Partners, LLC ("Horizon Energy"), as well as taking advantage of the relative depressed market in oil prices to enter highly prospective plays with Horizon Energy and other industry-leading partners. PG&E CORP: Faces 6 Putative Class Action Lawsuits at Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Company and its utility subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric Company are facing six potential class actions as of January 31, 2018. The Company said, "As of January 31, 2018, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are aware of 111 lawsuits, six of which seek to be certified as class actions, that have been filed against PG&E Corporation and the Utility in the Sonoma, Napa and San Francisco Counties Superior Courts. The lawsuits allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, and private nuisance. They principally assert that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the fires. The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other damages. "In addition, insurance carriers who have made payments to their insureds for property damage arising out of the fires have filed three subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior Court. These complaints allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance. The allegations are similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs. On October 31, 2017, a group of plaintiffs submitted a petition for coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council of California and requested coordination of the litigation in the San Francisco Superior Court. "On November 9, 2017, PG&E Corporation and the Utility submitted a petition for coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council of California, and requested separate coordination in the counties in which the fires occurred. "On January 4, 2018, the coordination motion judge of the San Francisco Superior Court entered an order granting coordination of the litigation in connection with the Northern California wildfires and recommending that the coordinated proceeding take place in the San Francisco Superior Court. "On January 12, 2018, the Judicial Council of California accepted the coordination motion judge's recommendation and assigned the coordinated proceeding to San Francisco. The first case management conference is scheduled for February 27, 2018." POW! ENTERTAINMENT: Norwood Files Class Suit v. Founder, Officers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Norwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stan Lee, Gill Champion, and Bick Le, Case No. 2018-0056 (Del. Ch. Ct., January 24, 2018), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of POW! Entertainment, Inc., to enjoin the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into by the Company and First Creative International Limited, a Hong Kong corporation, Camsing Entertainment International, Inc., pursuant to which Camsing would acquire all outstanding shares of POW! for $11.5 million less certain deductions, including payments made to certain Defendants. According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, to which Camsing was a knowing participant, to POW! Stockholders by engaging in a flawed sale process, designed to extract benefits for both the Individual Defendants and Camsing, including post-close employment, post- close equity stakes, and the transfer of Merger related costs, to the detriment of POW! Stockholders. Stan Lee is the co-founder of POW! Entertainment, Inc. Gill Champion President of POW! Entertainment, Inc. since 2004, Chief Executive Officer since January 26, 2011 and is the only other director of the Company. Bick Le is responsible for corporate financial reporting of POW! Entertainment, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com PURDUE PHARMA: To Stop Marketing Opioids to U.S. Physicians ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Woo, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the pharmaceutical giant that misled physicians and patients about the addictive properties of its top-selling drug OxyContin, fuelling an overdose crisis that has devastated communities across North America, will stop marketing opioids to U.S. physicians. However, the new policy does not extend into Canada. Purdue Pharma L.P. announced the change in a statement. "We have restructured and significantly reduced our commercial operation and will no longer be promoting opioids to prescribers," the Stamford, Conn.-based company said. It added that the roughly 200 sales representatives remaining -- about half of its sales force -- will focus on marketing non-opioid products. The company has sent notices to U.S. health-care providers saying its sales representatives will "no longer be visiting your office to engage you in discussions about our opioid products" effective Feb. 12. The change does not extend into Canada, where Purdue Pharma (Canada) operates independently. Representatives for Purdue both in Canada and the U.S. did not respond to interview requests on Feb. 11. Keith Ahamad, an addictions physician and a clinician researcher with the BC Centre on Substance Use, said it's too late for the new directive to have any meaningful impact. "There's no question that the marketing of these drugs to physicians in the past has played a role in where we are today, but this move is not going to move the needle on overdose deaths," Dr. Ahamad said. "We're so far down the line that it's too little, too late. There are so many other pharmaceutical companies in the game now. Physicians need to be getting their prescribing and treatment education from evidence-based guidelines rather than from pharmaceutical companies." Numerous lawsuits and top health officials in both Canada and the U.S. link Purdue's OxyContin drug to the fentanyl-driven overdose crisis that is decimating communities today. Health Canada approved OxyContin in 1996 for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. A marketing campaign ensued, in both Canada and the U.S., with Purdue sales representatives promising long-lasting relief for a wide array of ailments, from back pain to fibromyalgia, while downplaying its risk of addiction. The drug became the top-selling, long-acting opioid in Canada for more than a decade. At the same time, reports of addiction and overdoses due to the drug climbed -- both among those who had been prescribed it, and those who used diverted pills illicitly, often by crushing and snorting them. In 2007, Purdue and three top executives pleaded guilty to charges that they misled the U.S. public about the drug, paying more than US$634.5-million to settle criminal and civil charges. By 2012, Purdue pulled the drug from the Canadian market and replaced it with a tamper-resistant version called OxyNEO. The move drove some who had become addicted to OxyContin to street alternatives such as heroin, which at the same time became increasingly cut with an illicit version of the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl due to its low cost and high potency. In 2016, then-U.S. surgeon general Vivek Murthy took the unprecedented move of sending letters to every physician in the country in an effort to turn the tide on the opioid crisis. "Nearly two decades ago, we were encouraged to be more aggressive about treating pain, often without enough training and support to do so safely," Dr. Murthy wrote. "This coincided with heavy marketing of opioids to doctors. Many of us were even taught -- incorrectly -- that opioids are not addictive when prescribed for legitimate pain." Dr. Ahamad also cautioned against physicians cutting patients off of opioid medications if they are stable -- one factor that drove people to illicit drugs. "People who have an opioid addiction need to have access to evidence-based addiction treatment including medication that we know has proven mortality benefits," he said. "For those that are stable and have no harms associated with their opioid use, we have to make sure they're not cut off from their prescribed medication." At least 14 states have sued Purdue Pharma alleging its deceptive marketing practices contributed to the overdose crisis. In Canada, a $20-million national class-action lawsuit remains on hold after a Saskatchewan judge declined to sign off on the deal. In the Canadian suit, Purdue agreed to the settlement but made no admission of guilt. Canada is the world's second-largest per capita consumer of opioids, behind the U.S. While final figures are not yet in, it's believed that more than 4,000 Canadians died from opioid-related deaths in 2017 -- at least a 40-per-cent increase from 2,861 in 2016. In British Columbia, at least 1,422 people died of all illicit drug overdose deaths in 2017, with fentanyl being detected in 81 per cent of those deaths. In the U.S., opioids were a factor in more than 42,000 deaths in 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [GN] RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Certification Bid Due March 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ingrid Barahona has a new deadline of March 9, 2018, to file her motion for class certification, Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported class action lawsuit against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. ("Radiant"), DBA and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that we are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations based upon our preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards. If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims we, as well as our co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated against either our assets or current and expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged against our earnings in the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon our preliminary evaluation of the matter, we do not believe we are likely to incur material damages, if at all, since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) we do not believe as a matter of law we should be characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record; (iii) wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the uncertainly with litigation and the difficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (iv) Ms. Barahona has indicated her desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement. Ms. Barahona admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities ("Debtors"), and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which was continued multiple times so that the parties could attempt to obtain the necessary documents. DBA and the Company informally obtained all records within co-defendants' bankruptcy estate through their trustee's counsel; however, those records were incomplete and did not contain the requisite time, payroll and personnel records. Based on its belief that the debtors have additional records and in an effort to lift the bankruptcy "stay", Ms. Barahona obtained the dismissal of the debtors without prejudice from the state court action. Radiant Logistics said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, that the court set a deadline of November 30, 2017, for Ms. Barahona to file her motion for class certification, and set a further status conference for December 14, 2017, to set a briefing schedule for the motion for class certification. The court has also ordered the parties to participate in mediation by August 31, 2017. Radiant Logistics said, "We have been awaiting further action from Ms. Barahona with respect to the foregoing. The mediation has not taken place and we are unsure whether the court will issue another order requiring the parties to mediate this matter in the future. At this time, we are unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter." Radiant Logistics said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that after extensions, the court set a new deadline of March 9, 2018, for Ms. Barahona to file her motion for class certification, and set a further status conference for April 17, 2018, to set a briefing schedule for the motion for class certification. The parties have also scheduled a mediation for April 26, 2018. At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter. Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics company, providing multi-modal transportation and logistics services primarily in the United States and Canada. The company services a large and diversified account base consisting of consumer goods, food and beverage, manufacturing and retail customers which we support from an extensive network of over 100 operating locations across North America as well as an integrated international service partner network located in other key markets around the globe. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington. REALPAGE INC: Screening Co. Settles FCRA Case for $1MM ------------------------------------------------------ Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that a background screening company has agreed to pay more than $1 million to settle a class action alleging it provided erroneous and expunged background information to people's prospective landlords. U.S. District Judge John Padova of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently approved the accord in Stokes v. RealPage, which focused on claims that the defendant company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The settlement resolves more than 4,500 cases. According to attorneys involved in the case, the litigation settled for nearly $1.08 million, and covered claims stemming from the release of expunged information, the failure to tell people about the federal agencies tasked with enforcing the FCRA, and the company's failure to identify the source of the erroneous, or expunged records. The court also approved nearly $360,000 in attorney fees for class counsel. Litigation director for Community Legal Services, Sharon Dietrich, who was part of the team representing the plaintiffs, said the most important aspect of the resolution is that the company agreed to change it practices. "Our clients are really most interested in knowing their expungement cases aren't going to be coming up in the future," Dietrich said. CLS partnered with Philadelphia firm Francis & Mailman to pursue the litigation. James Francis, Esq. of Francis & Mailman, who was the lead attorney on the case, said he was pleased with the settlement, and noted that the fundamental purpose of the FCRA is to be remedial. "We consider the result here to be a 100 percent success," he said. RealPage was represented by Ronald Raether, Esq. -- ron.raether@troutman.com -- of Troutman Sanders. Raether did not return a call for comment February 9. The lead plaintiff in the case, Helen Stokes, had been a CLS client. She was in her 60s when she sued RealPage after she was turned down on housing applications in 2014. Stokes, according to court records, had been arrested in connection with a domestic dispute in 2008, but the charges were later dismissed. She was arrested again in 2010 on theft offenses after taking her husband's ATM card from their joint bank account, but those charges were also dismissed, according to court papers. By March 2014, both arrests were expunged, and in October, Stokes applied for a residential lease at a senior facility. RealPage, according to court papers, prepared and sold a consumer report to the senior facility that included Stokes' expunged information. After Stokes suspected that RealPage improperly reported her expunged information, the company failed to provide her with a copy of the improper report and did not tell her about the source of the expunged information. Another leading plaintiff in the case, James Jenkins, also brought claims after RealPage sold a report to a prospective landlord that said he had criminal convictions for passing a bad check and sexual assault, court papers said. Jenkins, however, had never been convicted of a crime and the records did not pertain to him. RealPage challenged whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims, contending that, under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins, they only suffered a technical violation of the FCRA and did not suffer any real harm. Padova rejected those arguments in 2016, and said the claims were sufficient to establish a concrete harm. According to Dietrich, that ruling was a major factor in bringing about the settlement. [GN] REDFIN CORP: Settlement Awaits Final Court Okay ----------------------------------------------- Parties in a class action lawsuit involving Redfin Corporation are awaiting final court approval of a settlement agreement, Redfin said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Third-party licensed sales associates filed three lawsuits against us in the Superior Court of the State of California in 2013 and 2014. Two of the actions, which are pled as "class actions," were removed to, and are now pending in, the Northern District of California. One of these cases also includes representative claims under California's Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq, or PAGA. The third action is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and asserts representative claims under PAGA. All three complaints allege that the plaintiffs and other licensed sales associates in California should be classified as employees instead of independent contractors. The claims vary from case to case, but generally seek compensation for unpaid wages, overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods as well as reimbursement of business expenses. Each of these cases has been ordered to arbitration. In June 2017, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve these cases for an aggregate payment of $1.8 million. The settlement class contemplated by the agreement includes all current and former third-party licensed sales associates engaged by Redfin in California from January 16, 2009 through April 29, 2017. As part of the settlement process, on August 18, 2017, the Company filed a Second Amended Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court to consolidate all of the cases, and all other lawsuits and arbitrations regarding these claims have been stayed pending the outcome of the Company's efforts to obtain final settlement approval, Redfin said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The settlement agreement has received preliminary court approval, but remains subject to final court approval, Redfin said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real estate brokerage. The company represents people buying and selling homes in over 80 markets throughout the United States. REGAL ENERTAINMENT: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling Regal Entertainment Group too cheaply through an unfair process to Cineworld, for $23 a share or $5.9 billion, a class of shareholders claims in Knox County Court. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Tel: 615.248.2828 Fax: 866.816.4116 Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com Of Counsel: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Tel: 610.667.6200 Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com mackerman@brodskysmith.com REGAL ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Pact to Dismiss "Baldassano" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Entertainment Group disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2018 that it has reached a memorandum of understanding wherein plaintiff in the "Baldassano" purported class action will dismiss claims asserted on behalf of the putative class without prejudice, in return for the Company's agreement to make supplemental disclosures. On December 5, 2017, Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cineworld Group plc, a public limited company incorporated in England and Wales (the "Parent"), Crown Intermediate Holdco, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent ("US Holdco"), and Crown Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of US Holdco (the "Merger Sub"), pursuant to which it is proposed that the Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). On January 29, 2018 a purported class action complaint relating to the Merger, captioned Baldassano v. Regal Entertainment Group et al., Case No. 195178-3, was filed on behalf of the stockholders against members of the board of directors of the Company, the Company, Parent, US Holdco and Merger Sub in the Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee in the Sixth Judicial District at Knoxville (the "Action"). The Action alleges that the board of directors of the Company breached its fiduciary duties to the stockholders by means of (A) agreeing to an allegedly unfair price in the proposed merger and (B) allegedly engineering a transaction to benefit themselves and/or Parent without regard to the Company's stockholders. The complaint also generally asserts that the Company, Parent, US Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the board of directors' breach of its fiduciary duties. The Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger agreement (to the extent the merger has already been consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 12, 2018, the Company and the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding in which the plaintiff agreed to dismiss his claims with prejudice, and to dismiss claims asserted on behalf of the putative class without prejudice, in return for the Company's agreement to make supplemental disclosures. The Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws and that the definitive information statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 2, 2018 (the "Information Statement") disclosed all material information required to be disclosed therein. However, to avoid the risk of the Action delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, it has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://is.gd/A86VGM The Company said, "The memorandum of understanding will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that the Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger." Regal Entertainment Group, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a motion picture exhibitor in the United States. The company develops, acquires, and operates multi-screen theatres primarily in mid-sized metropolitan markets and suburban growth areas of larger metropolitan markets. Regal Entertainment Group was founded in 2002 and is based in Knoxville, Tennessee. RHODE ISLAND: EOHHS Sued Over Non-Payment of Medicare Premiums -------------------------------------------------------------- Open Minds reports that on January 2, 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) of Rhode Island filed a class-action lawsuit against the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) because the state had not provided proper notice before it stopped paying Medicare premiums for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Scherwitz v. Beane, had been enrolled in the Medicare Payment Program (MPP). After the state went live with a new benefits eligibility determination system in September 2016, benefits were terminated without notice for many MPP participants. [GN] RIGHT SOLUTIONS: "Brock" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Nena Brock, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Right Solutions, LLP, Case No. 4:18-cv-00300 (S.D. Tex., February 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and all other remedies available under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Nena Brock is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas. She is currently employed by Defendant as an hourly paid Registered Nurse and has worked for Defendant from on or about July 2002 to the present. Defendant is in the business of staffing medical facilities throughout Texas with nurses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net ROCHE-BOBOIS USA: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roche-Bobois USA, Ltd. The case is styled as Lucia Marett, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Roche-Bobois USA, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01589 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Roche-Bobois U.S.A, Ltd. was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and copyrights which they in turn license others to use.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SAN DIEGO, CA: "Arellano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Arellano, Maico Alejo, and Gary Ollison, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated v. City of San Diego, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:18-cv-00229 (S.D. Calif., January 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are current or former non-exempt employees of the City of San Diego. Defendant City of San Diego is a charter city and a political subdivision of the State of California and at all relevant time is, or was, each plaintiff's employer. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eli Naduris-Weissman, Esq. Hannah Weinstein, Esq. ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE 510 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101-3115 Tel: (626) 796-7555 Fax: (626) 577-0124 E-mail: enaduris-weissman@rsglabor.com hweinstein@rsglabor.com SEARS CANADA: Pensioners Want Ex-Judge Named Litigation Trustee --------------------------------------------------------------- Marina Strauss, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that pensioners of Sears Canada Inc. were set to ask a court on Feb. 15 to approve the appointment of a retired judge to co- ordinate efforts to claw back dividends paid over several years - - much of it to entities controlled by American hedge-fund manager Edward Lampert. The pensioners argue that Sears Canada put its operations in jeopardy by paying billions in dividends to shareholders over a period of nearly a decade. Mr. Lampert's hedge fund, which was effectively the controlling shareholder of the now-failed retailer, was a key beneficiary of the special payments. Sears Canada collapsed in court protection last June and has now shut all its stores. Its retirees are owed about $270-million as a result of their underfunded pension and an estimated $400- million in unpaid health and life-insurance benefits, according to court documents to be filed on Feb. 12. The pensioners are asking the court to name Frank Newbould, a retired Ontario Superior Court judge, as a "litigation trustee" to co-ordinate various actions and investigations. The request comes as some creditors look for recoveries in the Sears Canada insolvency case and fear there will be little money left after the big payouts to lenders that were secured creditors. In documents sent on Feb. 9 to lawyers involved in the Sears insolvency, pensioners say the retailer's board of directors approved paying almost $3-billion in dividends in the eight years after Mr. Lampert's ESL Investments Inc. took control of Sears in 2005. Mr. Lampert is chairman and chief executive officer of U.S.-based Sears Holdings Corp., which was a major shareholder of Sears Canada. "In the years prior to applying for [court] protection in June, 2017, Sears Canada sold off significant assets, declared substantial dividends paid to shareholders -- in particular ESL and Mr. Lampert -- and drastically reduced its investment and commitment to the retail business of the company," William Turner, a former Sears Canada executive who heads its retiree group, says in a statement to be sworn on Feb. 12. "The actions taken or not taken by various parties in the years prior to the insolvency and commencement of these insolvency proceedings warrant a detailed review by a litigation trustee to determine if such actions or inactions caused, contributed to or precipitated the insolvency and the losses suffered by creditors." Sears Holdings spokesman Chris Brathwaite said in an e-mailed statement on Feb. 11 that the dividends it received were "authorized by Sears Canada's board of directors during a time when Sears Canada was clearly solvent, with minimal debt and $514-million in cash on its balance sheet after giving effect to the final dividend payment in 2013. We believe any attempt to reclaim those dividends would be unfounded." It said the board, in declaring the dividends, was at all times acting consistently with its duties to Sears Canada. In a blog posted on Feb. 11, Mr. Lampert says he never served as a director or officer of Sears Canada, "so I don't have firsthand knowledge of their internal deliberations and the alternatives considered." Mr. Lampert says the dividends paid in 2012 and 2013 following the sale of prime store leases represented about 50 per cent of the more than $1-billion of proceeds Sears Canada received; the retailer retained more than $500-million and had almost no long- term "funded" debt, he said. "This substantial amount of cash was available to be used in the company's operations going forward," Mr. Lampert says. "While this knowledge cannot change the impact that the failure of Sears Canada has had on many people, particularly its employees, I believe these facts should be at least be properly understood," he says. He says the pension plan's $270-million deficit figure is misleading because it also includes the health, dental and life insurance benefits which have been unfunded since 2008. He says the retirement plan alone recorded a $110-million deficit as of 2016. And that was calculated on outdated, low interest rates. "Assuming a reasonable rate of return on its $1-billion in assets and accounting for the increase in interest rates, Sears Canada should be able to meet its pension obligations," he says. "I too very much regret the failure of Sears Canada," he says. "Like other stakeholders, ESL has suffered significant losses from the bankruptcy of this storied company -- shareholders collectively lost over $1-billion since 2012, even taking into account the dividends received. "It is only by ignoring the entirety of the facts that one can conclude that the failure of the company was precipitated by a lack of financial resources rather than an unsuccessful attempt to turn the company around in the face of a rapidly changing retail environment." Andrew Hatnay -- ahatnay@kmlaw.ca -- lawyer at Koskie Minsky LLP who represents the retirees and former employees, planned to file the documents in Ontario Superior Court on Feb. 12 but declined to comment. The retirees and former employees are using a similar argument as the one made by Sears Canada's former Hometown operators in their class-action lawsuit against the company. The legal action was started several years ago and received court sanction in 2014 to proceed, although it was suspended during the Sears Canada insolvency proceedings. The Hometown dealers challenged the Sears board of directors for declaring an extraordinary $509-million dividend in 2013 after the struggling retailer sold lucrative assets, such as its Toronto Eaton Centre store lease, alleging the move would eventually lead to a formal insolvency of Sears to the detriment of creditors. Last month, FTI Consulting -- the monitor overseeing Sears's insolvency -- said it is reviewing the $509-million dividend paid along with a $102-million dividend a year earlier. But the monitor's investigations do not look at all potential Sears Canada claims, the pensioners' documents say. [GN] SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentry Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Lena Bylov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sentry Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01125 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Sentry Credit, Inc., a debt collector, provides primary and secondary contingency collections services.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dan@cml.legal SEVCON INC: Scarantino and Wilkinson Drop Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Jack Wilkinson and Louis Scarantino have agreed to drop their respective class action lawsuits against Sevcon, Inc. In a notice dated January 9, 2018, Mr. Wilkinson advised the Court that he won't pursue the case. In a notice dated January 11, 2018, Mr. Scarantino advised the Court that he was voluntarily dismissing the case. Sevcon, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 12, 2017, that plaintiffs in the Scarantino Action, on behalf of plaintiffs in both the Scarantino Action and the Wilkinson Action, sent a letter demanding certain disclosures related to the filed complaints. On August 22, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Louis Scarantino v. Sevcon, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11580, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Louis Scarantino, a purported stockholder of Sevcon, Inc. (the "Company"), against the Company, its directors, BorgWarner Inc. ("BorgWarner") and Slade Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), challenging the proposed merger ("Scarantino Action"). The complaint asserts a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") Rule 14a-9 against the Company and its directors, and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's directors and BorgWarner for allegedly disseminating a materially misleading proxy statement, in connection with the proposed merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the proposed merger, rescissory damages, and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On August 28, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit captioned Jack Wilkinson v. Sevcon, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:17- cv-11618, was also filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Jack Wilkinson, a purported stockholder of the Company, against the Company and its directors, challenging the proposed merger ("Wilkinson Action"). The Wilkinson Action contains allegations similar to those in the Scarantino Action. On August 30, 2017, plaintiffs in the Scarantino Action, on behalf of plaintiffs in both the Scarantino Action and the Wilkinson Action, sent a letter demanding certain disclosures related to the filed complaints (the "Letter"). The Company believes that both lawsuits are without merit. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/gxybKD. Sevcon is an electrical engineering company based in Gateshead, UK, that manufactures controls for electric vehicles. SHORETEL INC: Lawsuits Over Mitel Merger Terminated --------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have dropped their challenge to Mitel's acquisition of ShoreTel. In September, the District Court for the Northern District of California signed off on separate stipulations that provide for the voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits. ShoreTel said in its Form 10-K Report for the year ended June 30, 2017, that: -- on August 21, 2017, Louis Scarantino, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company, the individual members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel, captioned Scarantino v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv- 04857-YGR ("Scarantino Complaint"). -- on August 31, 2017, Gianfranca De Angelis, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company and the individual members of the ShoreTel Board, captioned De Angelis v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05091. -- on August 28, 2017, Armando Herrera, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company, the individual members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel, captioned Herrera v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv- 04988-WHO ("Herrera Complaint"). -- on August 23, 2017, Joseph Mozee, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company, the individual members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel, captioned Mozee v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv- 04888-HSG ("Mozee Complaint"). -- on August 22, 2017, Noradura Frydman, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company and the individual members of the ShoreTel Board, captioned Frydman v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-4865-BLF ("Frydman Complaint"). -- on August 24, 2017, David H. Simonson, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company, the individual members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel, captioned Simonson v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04931-WHA ("Simonson Complaint"). Each of the complaints asserts that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making untrue statements of material fact and omitting certain material facts related to the Merger Agreement and related transactions ("Transactions") in the Company's Schedule 14D-9. The complaint seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the Transactions, money damages and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. Shoretel said "The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and, if the lawsuits are pursued, the Company will vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, at the current time. Judge William H. Orrick signed the Stipulations in the De Angelis, Herrera, Mozee and Frydman cases. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the Stipulation in the Scarantino case. In an Order dated October 3, 2017, Judge William Alsup granted a Stipulation dismissing the Simonson case as moot. According to the Stipulation of Dismissal, ShoreTel on September 8, 2017, filed an amendment to the Solicitation Statement that included certain additional information relating to the Transaction that addressed and mooted claims regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures in the Solicitation Statement as alleged in the Actions. Plaintiff's counsel believes they may assert a claim for a fee in connection with the prosecution of the Action and the issuance of the Supplemental Disclosures, and have informed Defendants of their intention to petition the Court for such a fee if their claim cannot be resolved through negotiations between counsel for Plaintiffs in the Actions and Defendants. For the sake of judicial economy and the convenience of all parties, counsel for plaintiffs in all of the Actions have coordinated their efforts and intend to file any Fee Application jointly in the Scarantino Action, which was the first-filed of the Actions. On Sept. 25, 2017, Mitel(R) (Nasdaq:MITL) (TSX:MNW), announced that it has completed its acquisition of ShoreTel. Shoretel, Inc. is a provider of brilliantly simple business communication solutions. The company focuses on the small and medium sized businesses seeking a Unified Communications ("UC") solution allowing them to communicate anytime, anyplace and through any device that they chose. SIGNATURE BANK: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signature Bank. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Signature Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01598 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Signature Bank is an American, full-service commercial bank, based in New York City. The bank serves clients throughout the New York metropolitan area, Westchester, Long Island and Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SIU MEDICINE: Three Female Doctors Join Wage-Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Olsen, writing for The State Journal-Regsiter, reports that three current and former faculty members at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine have joined a fellow female doctor in a federal lawsuit that alleges systemic wage discrimination based on gender at the school. But attorneys representing the medical school and its not-for- profit multi-specialty group, SIU Medicine, signaled in court documents that they will ask a judge soon to strike down a part of the lawsuit because so few female doctors have opted to go public with their criticism of the Springfield-based school. Dr. Jan Rakinic, an SIU colorectal surgeon, joined the 2015 lawsuit in October, along with past faculty members Dr. Christina Vassileva, a heart surgeon who joined later that month, and family physician Dr. Erica Rotondo, who joined in January. SIU's lawyers noted in a filing Jan. 18 in Springfield's U.S. District that attorneys for former SIU surgeon Dr. Sajida Ahad received the court's approval in September to mail about 128 female doctors and inform the current and previous SIU faculty members how they could join the "collective action." But J. Bryan Wood, one of Ahad's attorneys, said, "None of this is surprising or a major development for us." Wood said many of the female doctors are busy and haven't looked into the option of joining the case, which alleges that female physicians at SIU were being paid more than $12,200 per year less than male doctors for similar work. Other female doctors may be worried about how entering the case and going public now may affect their relationship with their employer, whether it's SIU or some other group, he said. Female doctors still can join the case, and depending on how federal Judge Sue Myerscough rules in the future, physicians may be able to receive the benefits of any monetary award through a judgment or settlement after the fact, Wood said. SIU officials, who have denied Ahad's allegations in the past, declined comment February 9. Even if SIU is successful in reversing the conditional approval that Myerscough granted the collective action last year, the lawsuit could proceed on other fronts tied to a variety of federal and state laws, Wood said. For example, he said the judge could grant the lawsuit "class- action" status at any time. If granted that status, the lawsuit could put SIU at risk of paying millions of dollars in damages to up to 165 current and previous SIU female doctors based on alleged inequitable salaries retroactive to 2010 or earlier, according to Wood. A potential jury trial is at least months away, he said. Ahad, 43, a bariatric surgeon, was employed by SIU and treated patients through SIU Medicine, which was formerly known as SIU Physicians & Surgeons and SIU HealthCare, from 2008 through 2014. She received a base salary of $125,000 from the medical school and $110,903 from SIU Medicine in fiscal 2013, according to court documents. She currently is a faculty member at the University of Iowa. SIU recently lost an administrative appeal of a U.S. Department of Labor ruling in which an administrative law judge last year ordered SIU to pay Ahad $223,884, plus interest, for underpaying her in comparison with her mostly male peers at SIU. The administrative judge ruled in April 2016, and an administrative review board affirmed, that SIU erred in applying federal wage requirements covering workers from other countries for part of the time she was at SIU. Ahad, a Pakistani national, has permanent resident status in the United States. Ahad first filed her wage discrimination charge with the federal labor department in mid-2014. SIU has the option to appeal the labor department's administrative review board decision to a federal court, Wood said. In a related lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court, Allied World Specialty Insurance Co. says SIU Medicine isn't entitled to coverage for legal costs or damages associated with Ahad's Department of Labor case or the federal wage-discrimination lawsuit. Allied, formerly known as Darwin National Assurance Co., covered SIU Medicine from November 2013 through November 2017, Allied's lawsuit says. Allied contends that SIU Medicine notified first Allied about Ahad's wage cases in April 2017 -- too late to qualify for coverage. Wood said Southern Illinois University has liability coverage that is separate from Allied's previous coverage of SIU Medicine. Wood said it is his understanding that the university's liability insurance policy will cover legal costs and any judgments or settlements associated with the federal wage-discrimination suit. [GN] SPARTON CORP: Paid $200,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel -------------------------------------------------- Sparton Corporation and plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have agreed on the amount of attorneys' fees, and $200,000 was paid to plaintiffs' counsel, Sparton said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and the members of its board of directors were named as defendants in four federal securities class actions purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of the Company's common stock challenging the pending merger transaction with Ultra. The lawsuits generally sought, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the merger at the special meeting or consummating the merger transaction unless and until the Company disclosed the allegedly omitted information. The complaints also sought damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omissions, as well as related attorneys' fees and expenses. After discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs, the Company included certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement soliciting shareholder approval of the Merger. The Company believes the demands and complaints are without merit, there were substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted, and the proxy statement disclosed all material information prior to the inclusion of the additional disclosures. The Company made the additional disclosures to avoid the expense and burden of litigation. "On September 1, 2017, the court dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice with respect to lead plaintiffs in the lawsuits and without prejudice as to all other shareholders. The Company and plaintiffs must still attempt to resolve the appropriate amount of attorneys' fees, if any, to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel," Sparton said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2017. "During the second quarter of fiscal year 2018, the Company and plaintiffs agreed on the amount of attorneys' fees, and $200,000 was paid to plaintiffs' counsel," Sparton said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Sparton Corporation is a provider of design, development and manufacturing services for electromechanical devices, as well as engineered products. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Indemnification Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. continues to face an indemnification lawsuit filed by The Boeing Co. related to the UAW arbitration and the "Harkness Class Action," according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On December 5, 2014, Boeing filed a complaint in Delaware Superior Court, Complex Commercial Litigation Division, entitled The Boeing Co. v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No. N14C-12-055 (EMD) (the "Complaint"). Boeing seeks indemnification from Spirit for (a) damages assessed against Boeing in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America v. Boeing Co., AAA Case No. 54 300 00795 07 ("UAW Arbitration"), which was brought on behalf of certain former Boeing employees in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, and (b) claims that Boeing settled in Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v. Boeing Co., Nos. 05-1251-MLB, 07-1043-MLB (D. Kan.) ("Harkness Class Action"). The Company, Spirit, and certain Spirit retirement plan entities were parties to the Harkness Class Action, but all claims against the Spirit entities were subsequently dismissed. Boeing's Complaint asserts that the damages assessed against Boeing in the UAW Arbitration and the claims settled by Boeing in the Harkness Class Action are liabilities that Spirit assumed under an Asset Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit, dated February 22, 2005 (the "APA"). Boeing asserts claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment regarding its indemnification rights under the APA. Boeing's Complaint alleges that the UAW Arbitration decision had a net present value of US$39.0 million. In regard to the Harkness Class Action, the district court approved a settlement in an amount of US$90.0 million. In addition to the amounts related to the UAW Arbitration and Harkness Class Action, Boeing seeks indemnification for more than US$10.0 million in attorneys' fees it alleges it expended to defend the UAW Arbitration and Harkness Class Action, as well as for the reasonable fees, costs and expenses Boeing expends litigating the case against Spirit. Following a motion to dismiss (which was denied by Court Order dated August 14, 2015), Spirit answered Boeing's Complaint and asserted a Counterclaim against Boeing, on the ground that the liabilities at issue were Boeing's responsibility under the APA. Spirit's Counterclaim alleges breach of contract and seeks a declaratory judgment regarding Spirit's right to indemnification from Boeing under the APA. Spirit's Counterclaim seeks to recover the amounts that Spirit spent litigating the Harkness Class Action, responding to Boeing's indemnification demands concerning the Harkness Class Action and UAW Arbitration, and also litigating the current lawsuit against Boeing. On December 20, 2016, Boeing and Spirit moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment briefing was completed on February 9, 2017 and oral argument was held on the parties' motions for summary judgment on March 22, 2017. On June 27, 2017, the Delaware Superior Court issued an order denying Boeing's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the liabilities at issue were excluded liabilities under the APA and holding that Spirit is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses from Boeing. On July 10, 2017, Boeing filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment so that Boeing could pursue an appeal of the Court's June 27, 2017 Order prior to the determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses to which Spirit is entitled. On July 17, 2017, Spirit filed its response opposing Boeing's Motion for Entry of Judgment and oral argument occurred on July 24, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the Court denied Boeing's Motion for Entry of Judgment finding that there was just reason to delay an appeal to allow the Court to rule on Spirit's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest. The Court granted Spirit's motion as to fees, costs, and expenses incurred as a result of the litigation and underlying matters and denied the motion as to pre- and post-trial interest. On January 3, 2018, Boeing filed a Notice of Appeal and on that same date the Court issued a briefing schedule establishing that Boeing's opening brief is due on or before February 19, 2018. Spirit will timely file its answering brief and intends to defend vigorously against the appeal. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is an independent non-OEM aircraft parts designer and manufacturer of commercial aerostructures; and an independent supplier of aerostructures to both Boeing and Airbus. STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Lena Bylov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01123 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Stephen Einstein & Associates is a debt collection firm located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SUPER MICRO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Super Micro Computer, Inc. (Nasdaq:SMCI) ("Super Micro" or the "Company") securities during the period between January 27, 2017 and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 9, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Super Micro securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Super Micro's financial statements contained accounting errors, including errors with respect to one of the Company's sales transactions, the Company's internal controls were not effective, and Super Micro lacked the capability to timely review and assess the impact of the foregoing issues. According to the complaint, following an August 29, 2017 Notice of Late Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reporting that the Company is not in a position to file its Form 10-K in a timely manner because additional time was needed for the Company to compile and analyze certain information and documentation and complete preparation of its financial statements, an October 26, 2017 re-affirmance of its delay in filing the 10-K, and a January 30, 2018 announcement that the Company's Audit Committee has completed the previously disclosed investigation and that additional time was required to analyze the impact, if any, of the results of the investigation on the Company's historical financial statements, as well as to conduct additional reviews before the Company will be able to finalize Form 10-K, the value of Super Micro shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Super Micro securities purchased on or after January 27, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com piven@browerpiven.com [GN] SYNDICATED OFFICE: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------- James Pickelsimer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Syndicated Office Systems, LLC d/b/a Central Financial Control, Case No. 1:18-cv-00363-CAP-JKL (N.D. Ga., January 24, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Syndicated Office Systems, LLC is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marques J. Carter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER, LLC 3400 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 100 Douglasville, GA 30135 Telephone: (888) 332-7252 Facsimile: (866) 842-3303 E-mail: mcarter@consumerlawinfo.com TEZOS: SEC Denies Release of Project Documents Amid Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- PYMTS.com reports that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has denied a public information request for documents related to blockchain startup Tezos' cryptocurrency project, saying relinquishing such documents could impact either an investigation or enforcement actions. According to Reuters reports, the SEC declined to provide the materials, requested by lawyer David Silver, through a letter. Mr. Silver represents a group of plaintiffs who are claiming Tezos defrauded them during its fundraising activities back when the firm raised $232 million in July 2017. The SEC cited an exemption enabling it to not release documents if it believes said information could interfere with enforcement actions. The organization also noted the move should not be interpreted to mean any illegal actions took place, and did not state Tezos was under investigation. Mr. Silver supplied that letter to Reuters. The project has been locked in a battle for control between its founders, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman and Zug-based Tezos Foundation president Johann Gevers. The Breitmans own the Tezos source code through the Delaware-based company they control, but the Tezos Foundation controls all fundraisers' proceeds. Former foundation board member Guido Schmitz-Krummacher resigned because he was frustrated by the internal fighting. Mr. Gevers is able to nominate Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher's replacement under the foundation's bylaws. If the third board member votes against the candidate, Mr. Gevers can cast an overriding vote. The standoff has delayed the Tezos project's launch, which resulted in a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct. 25 in the San Francisco branch of the California Superior Court. The suit argues that Tezos violated U.S. securities laws and defrauded investors in its initial coin offering (ICO) because it hasn't yet issued any digital coins. In November, Bitcoin Suisse, the Swiss cryptocurrency broker that helped the blockchain startup raise the $232 million, said it was not aware that any of the invested funds had been mismanaged, lost or put at risk by Tezos' founders. [GN] TRUCKPRO LLC: "Broaden" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- Eric Broaden, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated v. TruckPro, LLC dba TruckPro - Orlando, Case No. 6:18- cv-00160 (M.D. Fla., January 31, 2018), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff Eric Broaden is a resident of Orange County, Florida. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on April 7, 2014, and worked as delivery/warehouse personnel for Defendant through his termination on June 23, 2016. Defendant has conducted substantial, continuous, and systematic commercial activities in Orange County, Florida. [BN] The 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 Tel: (407) 622-6544 Fax: (407) 622-6545 E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney rsutton@lblaw.attorney TRUNK CLUB: Judge Dismisses Noncompete Agreement Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that citing an undisclosed settlement, a Cook County judge dismissed a class action challenging personal styling service Trunk Club's requirement that entry-level employees sign a noncompete agreement. ULTA BEAUTY: Lawsuit Alleges Resale of Used Cosmetics as New ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Channick, writing for Herald and Review, reports that a California woman is suing Ulta Beauty, the suburban Chicago-based cosmetics retailer, for allegedly reselling used makeup as new to unsuspecting consumers. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Chicago, seeks class- action status for what it claims is Ulta's "widespread and surreptitious practice" of repackaging returned cosmetics and mixing them back on the shelf to sell at full price with unblemished products. "Every customer who has purchased cosmetics at Ulta since this practice began was put at risk of unwittingly purchasing used, unsanitary cosmetics and this risk reduces the desirability and value of all cosmetics sold by Ulta," the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit was brought by Kimberley Laura Smith-Brown, a Los Angeles woman who purchased dozens of cosmetic items, including eye liner, mascara and, most recently, lip balm, at an Ulta store over the past six months -- before reports of the alleged practice of reselling used makeup surfaced on social media. "We are aware of the lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations," Ulta Beauty spokeswoman Karen Twigg May said February 9 in an email. "Our policies, training and procedures are aimed at selling only the highest-quality new products in our stores and online. The health and safety of Ulta Beauty guests is a top priority, and we strive to consistently deliver an optimal experience every time they shop with us." Neither Smith-Brown nor her Chicago attorneys responded February 9 to requests for comment. Launched in 1990, Bolingbrook-based Ulta bills itself as the largest beauty retailer in the U.S., selling cosmetic, fragrance, skin care, hair care and other products through 1,058 retail stores and its website. The company had a net income of about $410 million on sales of nearly $4.9 billion in 2016, according to its most recent annual report. The alleged practice of reselling returned cosmetics came to light on Jan. 9, when Twitter user @fatinamxo, who claimed to be a former Ulta employee, posted several messages about her experiences with reselling used products. Her Twitter feed lit up with posts from others who claimed to be Ulta employees, with some supporting her contention and others rejecting it. Meanwhile, customers mostly expressed shock and displeasure over the alleged practice, coloring their comments with expressive GIFs and emojis. Efforts to reach @fatinamxo February 9 through Twitter were unsuccessful. Smith-Brown and her attorneys are seeking to form a class that would extend to everyone who purchased cosmetics from Ulta Beauty retail locations since every sale is "tainted with the possibility that the customer is purchasing used, dirty cosmetics," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit raises but is not based on the possible health concerns of reusing makeup. Instead, it is suing Ulta for "unjust enrichment" by reselling used products as new to unaware consumers. In addition to seeking certification as a class action, the lawsuit asks for undisclosed damages and other relief. [GN] UNION NU DONUTS: Faces "Bakul" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Nu Donuts Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts. The case is styled as Shirin Bakul, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Union Nu Donuts Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts, ABC Corp d/b/a Dunkin Donuts and Neerja Jain, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01118 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). Union Nu Donuts Inc. is in the Donut shops business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Face Rail Shippers' Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation continues to face antitrust lawsuit filed by rail shippers against certain Class I railroads in the U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Twenty rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the Company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, the Company's subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR" or "Railroad") and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic. On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate- based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008. On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class certification ruling. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the plaintiffs. After reviewing an intervening case, supplemental expert materials and related briefing from the parties, Judge Friedman scheduled and completed a new class certification hearing during the week of September 26, 2016. On October 10, 2017, the parties received a ruling from Judge Friedman denying class certification. Plaintiffs have sought appellate review of that ruling and on December 20, 2017, were granted the right of an interlocutory appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Union Pacific Corporation operates through its principal operating subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) links 23 states in the western two-thirds of the country by rail. UPRR's business mix includes Agricultural Products, Automotive, Chemicals, Coal, Industrial Products and Intermodal. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska. UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Stay CSR Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Katie Keith, writing for Health Affairs, reports that on February 7, 2018, Judge Margaret Sweeney on the Court of Federal Claims granted the federal government's motion to stay litigation over cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments brought by Maine Community Health Options (MCHO). MCHO sued the federal government for about $5.6 million in outstanding CSR payments from the final three months of 2017. Judge Sweeney stayed these proceedings until the Federal Circuit issues an appellate decision in one or both of its two pending risk corridors cases, Land of Lincoln v. United States and/or Moda Health Plan v. United States. Land of Lincoln (trial court ruled against the insurer) and Moda Health (trial court ruled partly in favor of the insurer) were argued before the Federal Circuit on January 10, 2018. In deciding to wait on a decision from the Federal Circuit, Judge Sweeney cited a belief that the analysis in the risk corridors decisions "may provide guidance" that will benefit the resolution of ACA cases currently before the Court of Federal Claims. Once a decision is issued in one or both of these cases, the federal government will have 60 days to respond to MCHO's complaint and motion for summary judgment. MCHO had filed a motion for expedited briefing and argument on February 6, 2018, with the hope of quickly resolving the litigation. MCHO argued that an expedited schedule is necessary because it faces financial strain as a result of unpaid CSRs. As a CO-OP, its dominant lines of business are through the individual and small group marketplaces and it does not have sufficient revenue from the large group market to offset 2017 CSR losses (as most traditional insurers do). MCHO also noted opposition to the government's motion for a stay, challenging the idea that the risk corridors and CSR litigation are related. MCHO argued that its lawsuit is about the government's obligation to make CSR payments under Section 1402 of the ACA, whereas the risk corridors litigation addresses whether subsequent appropriations by Congress retroactively negate an HHS obligation under Section 1342 of the ACA. MCHO argues that there are no subsequent appropriations at issue in the CSR dispute and that the comparison to the risk corridors litigation is unfounded. The federal government, however, asserts that the arguments made in MCHO's summary judgment motion mirror the arguments that insurers have made to the Federal Circuit in the pending risk corridors appeals. In brief, these arguments are that 1) insurers are entitled to specified payments under the ACA regardless of whether Congress appropriated funds for those payments and 2) the government violated an implied-in-fact contract with insurers that offered marketplace coverage. Because these two legal issues are before the Federal Circuit under Land of Lincoln and Moda Health, the federal government believes that a decision from the Federal Circuit will address the central legal issues raised by MCHO. They also note that proceeding without a decision from the Federal Circuit will ultimately delay the lawsuit because new briefing will be required after the Federal Circuit issues an opinion in the risk corridors cases. The federal government also points to the court's decision to issue a stay in Common Ground v. United States, which is a class action lawsuit on risk corridors payments that was later amended to include the government's failure to make CSR payments. In August 2017, Judge Sweeney issued a stay in Common Ground pending a decision from the Federal Circuit in Land of Lincoln and/or Moda Health; the stay was continued even after Common Ground amended its complaint to include CSR payments. Because of this, the federal government argues that Common Ground was the first CSR challenge to be filed and, now that it has been stayed by Judge Sweeney, it would be unfair to allow MCHO to "jump in front" of a stayed case "simply because it wishes an expedited ruling." MCHO is not alone. So far, there are four lawsuits against HHS for failure to make CSR payments, one of which is the class action brought in Common Ground. Billions of dollars are already at stake in the risk corridors litigation. Judge Sweeney's stay in the MCHO litigation provides a new reason to keep a close eye on the Federal Circuit's risk corridors decision, which will now likely impact the viability of litigation over unpaid CSRs. Massachusetts CO-OP Fails In Challenge to HHS Risk Adjustment Formula On January 30, 2018, Judge Dennis Saylor of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts held that HHS acted within the scope of its authority in adopting regulations to implement the ACA's risk adjustment program. This challenge to HHS authority had been brought by Minuteman Health, the CO-OP in Massachusetts that offered marketplace coverage in Massachusetts in 2014 and in Massachusetts and New Hampshire from 2015 to 2017. Minuteman has since gone into receivership after being required to pay 71 percent of its 2014 premium revenue and 40 percent of its New Hampshire revenue and 39 percent of its Massachusetts revenue to the ACA's risk adjustment program. The goal of the risk adjustment program is to spread the costs of covering higher-risk enrollees across insurers, thereby reducing incentives for insurers to engage in cherry picking or other ways of avoiding adverse selection. The program results in payment transfers from insurers that attract individuals with a lower risk to insurers that attract individuals with a higher risk. The ACA directed HHS to develop standards for the risk adjustment program; although states could administer their own risk adjustment programs, Massachusetts was the only state to do so and has since ceded its program to HHS. In essence, Minuteman asserts that the risk adjustment formula-- which is set out by HHS in annual regulations that go through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process--is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and that HHS improperly injected unauthorized factors into the risk adjustment methodology. Minuteman raises a number of flaws in the HHS risk adjustment methodology, arguing, for instance, that HHS' formula underestimates the costs of insuring members who are not diagnosed with particular medical conditions defined in the methodology. HHS states that it considered Minuteman's concerns throughout the notice-and-comment rulemaking process (as well as feedback on white papers and similar materials) but did not ultimately adopt the insurer's recommendations or proposed changes. Although Judge Saylor identified instances where HHS' responses were "somewhat troublesome" -- noting, for instance, that it "might have been prudent" for HHS to address certain comments directly -- he did not find that the agency acted unreasonably or irrationally. In granting the government's motion for summary judgment, Judge Saylor held that the challenged regulations were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and did not contravene Section 1343 of the ACA. As he put it, "HHS acted within the bounds of its authority, even when the consequences of its choices may not always have been optimal." Alaska And Oregon Receive Notification Of 2018 Pass-Through Funding From HHS On February 6, 2018, HHS issued two separate letters to notify officials in Alaska and Oregon that their states would be receiving pass-through funding of about $58.5 million and $54.5 million, respectively, for the 2018 calendar year. The pass- through funding is pursuant to each state's approved reinsurance waiver under Section 1332 of the ACA. Although the details of their reinsurance programs are slightly different, both states asked to waive the ACA's single risk pool requirement. All states with approved Section 1332 waivers have now received a notification of their federal pass-through funding for 2018. Minnesota, which also established a reinsurance program, received its notification letter in late January 2018 while Hawaii received its letter in September 2017. HHS will calculate the amount of pass-through funding for each state on an annual basis. [GN] UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 2nd Amended Federal Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- United Technologies Corporation is facing a second amended complaint related to federal securities laws litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On January 2, 2018, a purported shareowner filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its current and former executives (Frankfurt-Trust Investment Luxemburg AG v. United Technologies Corporation et al.), which further amends a complaint that was filed on May 10, 2017. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareowners who purchased the Company's stock between December 11, 2014 and July 20, 2015. The second amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, related to alleged false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact made in connection with the Company's 2015 earnings expectations. The Company said, "This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could result from this action." United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide. The Company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal on Nixed TCPA Claims Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- A United Technologies Corporation unit continues to face consolidated complaints related to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third- party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. Each violation under the TCPA provides for US$500 in statutory damages or up to US$1,500 for any willful violation. In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary judgment in the Northern District of West Virginia, the court in which all of the pending TCPA cases has been consolidated, arguing that the third parties who placed the calls in alleged violation of the TCPA were not acting as UTCFS' agents and, therefore, UTCFS could not be vicariously liable for those calls under the TCPA. On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS' summary judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 14, 2017. Oral arguments on the appeal were presented before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 24, 2018. United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide. The Company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. UTAH: No Hearing Date Yet in I/DD Class Action v. Health Dep't. --------------------------------------------------------------- Open Minds reports that on January 8, 2018, Staci Christensen, John R. Weakly, Disability Law Center filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Utah, including the Utah Department of Health, the Division of Services for People with Disabilities, and Governor Gary Herbert on behalf of consumers with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). The plaintiffs allege that the individuals with I/DD living in private ICFs are not given access to integrated community-based services and are denied the choice to make meaningful and informed choices about segregation as decided under the Olmstead decision. No hearing or trial date has been set. [GN] VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc. continues to defend itself against a purported shareholder class action lawsuit pending in Israel, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2017. The Company said: "On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint was filed against us in Israel alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli class action and alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S. class action settlement proceedings. We are opposing the new class action and plaintiff's class certification motion on substantially the same grounds on which the previous case was dismissed. The court held a pretrial hearing on that motion on May 19, 2016 at which it requested additional information including expert reports, a position paper from the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA") and further briefing. In July 2016, the ISA submitted a position paper supporting our position regarding applicable law. Other requested information has also now been submitted, but the court has not yet ruled." VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global leader in payments and commerce solutions. The Company provides expertise and solutions that add value at the retail point-of-sale and enable innovative forms of commerce. For 35 years, the Company has been a leader in designing, manufacturing, marketing and supplying a broad range of innovative payment solutions, including customer payments acceptance, connectivity between merchants and financial institutions, as well as security and comprehensive payment and commerce services. WASHINGTONFIRST BANKSHARES: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case captioned as Paul Parshall v. WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc.., et al., Case 1:17-cv-00877- TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.) has filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice. The notice was filed Sept. 11, 2017. WashingtonFirst Bankshares said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed in September that the plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice. As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated September 8, 2017, related to the Merger, on August 1, 2017, Paul Parshall, a purported stockholder of WashingtonFirst, filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Paul Parshall v. WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc.., et al., Case 1:17-cv-00877- TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.) (the "Lawsuit"). The relief sought in the Lawsuit included preliminary and permanent injunction against the consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger was completed, costs and attorney's fees. On September 11, 2017, the plaintiff in the Lawsuit filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice. WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc. is the parent company of the WashingtonFirst Bank, a $2 billion dollar bank headquartered in Reston, Virginia. It provides financial and mortgage banking services to local businesses and consumers. WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Faces "Shadwick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- William Shadwick, individually on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Waupaca Foundry, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00026-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 24, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Waupaca Foundry, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation that specializes in supplying numerous industries with cast metal products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com WEINSTEIN CO: New York AG Sues Amid Pending Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Faughnder, writing for Governing, reports that a $500 million deal to sell Harvey Weinstein's troubled old studio to former Obama administration official Maria Contreras-Sweet hit a major roadblock after the New York attorney general's office expressed serious concerns about the sale. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Feb. 11 sued Weinstein Co. and its co-founders, Harvey Weinstein and Bob Weinstein, for "egregious violations of New York's civil rights, human rights and business laws," the attorney general's office said in a statement. "The Weinstein Co. repeatedly broke New York law by failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation and discrimination," Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement. "Any sale of The Weinstein Co. must ensure that victims will be compensated, employees will be protected going forward, and that neither perpetrators nor enablers will be unjustly enriched. Every New Yorker has a right to a workplace free of sexual harassment, intimidation and fear." The lawsuit, filed in New York County Supreme Court, jeopardizes the planned sale to Contreras-Sweet, which was backed by billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. The buyer has been in negotiations with the Weinstein Co. for weeks. The Contreras- Sweet deal would give her control over the studio's assets. Her group has promised to set up a majority-female board and establish a fund to help women who have alleged abuse by Harvey Weinstein. Contreras-Sweet ran the U.S. Small Business Administration under President Barack Obama from 2014 to 2017. A deal was expected to be signed on Feb. 11, ending a protracted search for a buyer four months after sexual harassment and assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein sent the New York company into a tailspin. Authorities in Los Angeles, New York and London have launched criminal investigations into the allegations against Weinstein. He has denied claims that he engaged in nonconsensual sex with women. The company is facing multiple other lawsuits, including a class- action case filed in November that accused the studio of enabling Weinstein's alleged predatory behavior. Mr. Schneiderman's office launched its civil rights investigation into Weinstein Co. in October, shortly after allegations of sexual misconduct were detailed in The New York Times and the New Yorker. Mr. Schneiderman issued a subpoena for company documents as part of an investigation into whether officials at the film and television company violated state civil rights and New York City human rights laws. The New York Daily News on Feb. 10 first reported that Mr. Schneiderman's office was preparing to sue Weinstein Co. The 38-page complaint alleges that the Weinstein Co. board of directors and executives failed to protect employees or curb Harvey Weinstein's misconduct, despite widespread knowledge of his behavior and numerous complaints to the company's human resources department. Groups of predominantly female employees, described in the complaint as members of Harvey Weinstein's "roster" or his "wing women," were made to facilitate Weinstein's sexual conquests, the suit says. Representatives for Weinstein Co., Yucaipa and Contreras-Sweet declined to comment. Mr. Schneiderman's office also expressed deep concerns about whether the new company that results from the planned sale will make good on its promise to compensate victims beyond what would normally be paid through insurance. It also raised worries about the future leadership of the studio. The attorney general's office said in its statement that it has "substantive basis" to believe the sale would "leave victims without adequate redress, including a lack of a sufficient victims compensation fund." The office "also believes that the proposed terms of the sale would allow the perpetrators or enablers of the misconduct to see a windfall, and allow top officials at TWC who share responsibility for the misconduct to serve in executive positions of the new entity," according to the statement. Mr. Schneiderman's office has questioned the possible appointment of Weinstein Co. President and Chief Operating Officer David Glasser as chief executive because he served as Harvey Weinstein's right-hand man for years and essentially ran the business, according to a person familiar with the matter. A representative for Mr. Glasser declined to comment. According to a document reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the attorney general's office has been seeking assurances that the company will establish a fund that will adequately compensate accusers. The office has also demanded that the company put into escrow any proceeds from the sale that would go to Harvey Weinstein or his brother, Bob, who co-founded the studio in 2005. Mr. Schneiderman's office has also demanded oversight over the company as part of the purchase agreement to ensure that the new company takes adequate steps to protect employees. Contreras- Sweet balked at the demand for government oversight, said two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. "We expressed to them how important it is that any deal adequately compensate victims, protect employees, and not reward those who enabled or perpetuated this egregious sexual misconduct," said Amy Spitalnick, press secretary for the office of the New York attorney general, in an emailed statement. "We were surprised to learn they were not serious about discussing any of those issues or even sharing the most basic information about how they planned to address them." If a deal is not reached, Weinstein Co. may be forced into bankruptcy. The financial burden and mounting legal threats against the company led many industry veterans to say the studio would have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection or shut down. Weinstein Co. tried and failed to secure financial lifelines from investors such as Thomas Barrack's Colony Capital and private equity firm Fortress. Santa Monica, Calif.-based studio Lionsgate, known for "La La Land" and "The Hunger Games," was interested in buying certain assets of the company. Killer Content, the New York production company behind "Carol" and "Still Alice," had offered to buy the assets and remake them into an entity to support women. Other bidders included Miramax (owned by BeIN Media) and private equity firms Shamrock Capital Advisors and Vine Alternative Investments. Contreras-Sweet's offer would not require a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Under the terms of the proposal, her group would assume $225 million in debt and establish a fund worth $50 million to $60 million for Weinstein's accusers, according to people close to the deal. [GN] WILLIAM BARTHMAN JEWELER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Barthman Jeweler Ltd. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. William Barthman Jeweler Ltd. doing business as: William Barthman, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01598 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018). William Barthman Jeweler, Ltd. was founded in 1983. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of jewelry such as diamonds and other precious stones.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11212 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Email: dan@cml.legal XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. continues to face Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately 150 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators' business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven of these claims, in 2014, the Company appealed the decision to California Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the merits of those claims. On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of US$2.9 million plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants. The Company has exhausted its appeals in this matter and the Superior Court entered final judgment against the Company in January 2018. Separate decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims involving five additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately US$0.9 million, following which the Company appealed the decisions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 16, 2017, the Court issued judgment finding that the five claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of approximately US$1.0 million plus post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants. The Company has appealed this judgment, but cannot provide assurance that such appeal will be successful. In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately US$0.9 million, which the Company has appealed to the California Superior Court, Long Beach. The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions involving approximately 200 claimants, including the approximately 150 claimants. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to the claims. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company") use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments: Transportation and Logistics. XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. continues to face Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. "Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are pending, or have recently been settled, in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005, in the Federal District Court, Southern District of California - the Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation, the court has granted final approval, and the Company has accrued the full amount of the settlement; and four related cases all pending in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in May 2017); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015 in the Federal District Court, New Jersey and settled in November 2017); and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015 in the Federal District Court, Connecticut and settled in August 2017). "The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims." XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company") use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments: Transportation and Logistics. XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK on TCPA Suit Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a settlement agreement to resolve a putative class action suit related to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company is a party to putative class action litigation (Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer call system used by a last mile logistics business that the Company acquired. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the Leung case and awaits final court approval of the settlement. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company") use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments: Transportation and Logistics. * UK Cos. May Face More Data-Protection Related Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Croft, writing for The Financial Times, reports that the number of legal cases involving FTSE 100 companies in London's High Court has dropped by almost a quarter as litigation relating to the financial crisis has tailed off. According to data compiled by Thomson Reuters, cases involving listed corporates fell to 206 in the 12 months ending in June 2017, down from 279 in the 12 months to June 2016. Financial services companies accounted for the majority of cases, with dozens of loan disputes and allegations of mis-selling of interest rate swaps going through the London courts. The number of High Court cases involving FTSE 100 financial services companies fell to 146 in the 12 months ending June 2017, down from 194 in the previous 12-month period. The report also identified a growing trend for group lawsuits. These are increasingly financed by third-party litigation funders such as Harbour Litigation and Burford Capital, which fund legal costs in return for a share of any compensation won. Third-party funders have been financing high-profile legal actions in the past year, including the 6,000 Lloyds shareholders who are suing the bank and five former directors in a GBP600m lawsuit over its disastrous acquisition of HBOS in 2008. The case, which began in September last year, is due to finish in March and is being financed by Therium. Other group actions include a lawsuit brought by almost 60,000 car owners against Volkswagen after the company admitted to fitting millions of cars with special software that allowed them to cheat emissions tests. Therium is also funding collective action against Google brought by a former Which? executive director, over claims the company illegally gathered the personal data of millions of iPhone users in the UK. A report published on Feb. 12 by law firm RPC says that as more money is invested in litigation funders, they will step up their search for cases to back, which could include new areas such as asset tracing and arbitration. Raichel Hopkinson, head of practical law dispute resolution at Thomson Reuters, said businesses could face more class action lawsuits financed by litigation funders in areas such as data protection when the EU's General Data Protection Regulation comes into force in May. "Major corporates, especially banks, finally have a pause to draw breath after a decade fighting off credit crunch-era lawsuits," she said. "However, this could be shortlived respite. Big businesses may now have to brace themselves for the possibility of a rise in class actions financed by the growing pot of third-party litigation funding." [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 * * *